Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths, on active service, of Brigadier John Percival Whiteley, Member for the County of Buckingham (Buckingham Division), and Colonel Victor Alexander Cazalet, M.C., Member for the County of Wilts (Chippenham Division); and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIUM (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that the Belgian Government have asked for navicerts for 2,000 tons a month of dried milk, vitamin tablets and medicinal supplies; and whether, as this food is required solely for women and children in Belgium, he proposes to grant the necessary permit?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): Representations have been made by the Belgian Government, though not in the precise form suggested in the Question. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my former answers on this subject.

Mr. Stokes: Do the Government propose to do anything about this? All the answers were unsatisfactory.

Mr. Foot: I gave a very full considered answer, setting out the policy of the Government, on 19th May, and I have nothing to add to that reply.

Mr. Stokes: Are the Belgian Government in this country satisfied with that reply?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: May we take it that the Government are still considering the question?

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEDEN (TRAADE DELEGATION)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he is now in a position to make any report on the discussions recently held with the Swedish trade delegation; and whether, during the discussions, any indication was given by the delegation that the transport of German troops to and from Norway through Sweden would be discontinued?

Mr. Foot: These discussions were confidential, and it would not be in the public interest to reveal their subject matter.

Sir A. Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.

Sir A. Southby: Does that mean that the transport of troops across Sweden is still going on?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Detention Barracks (Independent Inquiry)

Mr. William Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue to Members of Parliament passes enabling them to enter military detention camps without prior notice?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, facilities exist for Members of Parliament to visit detention barracks, and I am glad to say that a number of Members have made use of them. I should like to emphasize that these facilities are still available, and that visits are welcomed. I regret, however, that it would be impracticable to issue the number of passes of the nature required by my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Brown: Are the visits which are possible under present conditions visits made without prior warning, or does prior notification have to be made?

Mr. Henderson: I think that in most if not in all cases prior notice is necessary. For one thing it is not much good a visitor going to a camp if all the troops are out on a route march, and it is in the interest of the visitor that prior notice should be given.

Mr. Brown: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that public confidence in the administration of these camps has been gravely hurt by recent revelations and that nothing will restore that confidence except provision for the inspection of the camps by outside independent agencies without prior warning?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until later, when my right hon. Friend will make a statement.

Mr. Thorne: How far are these camps from this House?

Mr. Henderson: They are in different parts of England, and in Scotland. There are also one in the Orkneys and one in the Shetlands.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take in the case of the doctor responsible for certifying the late Rifleman W. C. Clayton, in respect of whose death sentences were delivered against two warrant officers at a recent assize?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War what action is being taken in respect of the military doctors who failed to ascertain the true medical condition of the late Rifleman Clayton, whose death occurred recently in a military detention barracks?

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the court's findings in connection with the death of Rifleman Clayton, he will cause an independent public inquiry to be held into conditions prevailing in military detention barracks?

Mr. Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take against the medical officer who, after examination, ordered medicine and duty in the case of Rifleman William Clarence Clayton, who was suffering from deafness and advanced tuberculosis and died as a result of brutal treatment in Gillingham detention camp?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause an independent committee of inquiry to be set up to investigate the conditions now prevailing at Army detention camps and barracks?

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the court of inquiry into matters arising from the death of Rifleman Clayton will be held in public; and if Rifleman Clayton's relatives, or their representatives, will be permitted to be present if they so desire?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The Government have decided that an independent inquiry should be held into conditions at Navy and Army detention barracks generally, and I hope to make an announcement shortly as to who is to conduct the inquiry. It will, of course, be for the inquiry itself to determine the manner in which it will conduct its proceedings. In the meantime the Military Court of Inquiry on the special case of Fort Dar-land is sitting, and in accordance with the usual practice this inquiry will not be open to the public.

Mr. Davies: May we take it that inquiry will be made into the responsibility of the doctor who certified Rifleman Clayton as fit for duty? May I go further and ask whether the inquiry will go back as far as the medical board who passed this man into the Army?

Sir J. Grigg: In regard to the second point, I understand that there is a Question on the Paper to the Minister of Labour. As to the first point, as to the responsibility of the military officer, I have had the report of an inquiry into that particular aspect, but I have not had time to study it, and I am not in the position to say anything about it.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend see to it that the terms of reference of the court of inquiry lay particular stress upon inquiry into the action of the doctor who failed in his duty and did not see that the man was ill?

Sir J. Grigg: I should not give any terms of reference to the court which would seek to prejudge any question in advance.

Mr. Dugdale: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give the information as to the date of the inquiry?

Sir J. Grigg: I hope to be in a position shortly to announce the structure of the inquiry. What at present we have in mind is that it it should be conducted by a High Court Judge with assessors, probably from outside, as well as some military.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the terms of reference be such as to preclude an inquiry into the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the responsibility of the doctor who certified this man fit for duty?

Sir J. Grigg: The functions of the independent inquiry will be to inquire into general conditions in detention barracks, both of the Navy and the Army. Air Force prisoners are confined in Army barracks. The military court of inquiry is sitting to consider aspects of the question at Fort Darland. I have had a report on the particular case of the medical officer, but I returned only late last night, and I am not yet in a position to comment on it. The terms of reference of the general inquiry will certainly cover medical arrangements.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men previously employed in the civil prison service are now serving in the Army; and how many of them are employed in work connected with military detention barracks?

Mr. Henderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is 291 and to the second part 138.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say why all the 291 are not utilised in this Service, in view of the great knowledge they have of the conditions?

Mr. Henderson: The explanation is that some have been transferred to other arms of the Service, either because they applied for transfer or because they were considered unsuitable for the rank of sergeant and above which is essential.

Mr. W. Brown: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what proportion of the total these figures represent?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid not without notice.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will allow the findings of the Departmental investiga-

tion into the treatment, training, accommodation and feeding of soldiers under sentence in detention barracks to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?

Mr. Henderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) on 13th May, 1942, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the findings of this Departmental Committee be available to the committee of inquiry which the Secretary of State has said is to be set up?

Mr. Henderson: I imagine that if they desire to see them they will be made available.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the total number of detention barracks or camps in the United Kingdom in which soldiers serving in the British Army are detained; and in how many of these first offenders are segregated from other prisoners?

Mr. Henderson: There are 12 military prisons and detention barracks in the United Kingdom. Seven of these are reserved for soldiers serving a first or second sentence of detention. The first offenders in these barracks are segregated from the second offenders.

Mr. Driberg: Can we take it that that is the universal practice?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make it possible for inspecting officers to pay some at least of their visits to detention barracks without previous notice?

Mr. Henderson: It is already possible for inspecting officers to visit these establishments without notice.

Mr. Driberg: Are all inspecting officers aware of that possibility?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War the names of the doctors who passed as fit for the Army the late Rifleman Clayton, who was suffering from tuberculosis?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I have been asked to reply. The whole of the circumstances of this case are at present the subject of inquiry by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to give partial information in advance of the results of that inquiry with regard to particular aspects of the case.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the Minister appreciate that in the advanced condition of tuberculosis the symptoms are very obvious——

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Not always.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: —when there has been thorough examination and that if it is not intended to give the name of the doctor or doctors implicated in this case, it will show that the War Office are protecting inefficient or slack physicians?

Mr. Tomlinson: The assumption in the Supplementary Question is not borne out by the facts.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Secretary of State for War has stated that the inquiry instituted would not include the doctors?

Sir J. Grigg: I said nothing of the sort.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many doctors who have read this case have said of themselves, "There, but for the grace of God, go I"?

Cozens-Hardy Committee's Report.

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to inform the House of his decisions on the recommendations of the Cozens-Hardy Committee?

Mr. Henderson: The Report of the Cozens-Hardy Committee covers a wide field, and the Departmental examination is not yet complete. In the circumstances it would be premature for me to make any statement at the present stage.

Mr. Brown: When does the hon. and learned Gentleman expect that the examination will be completed?

Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Member knows, certain discussions are taking place, and it will have to wait until the termination of those discussions.

North Africa (4th June Celebrations)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for War what expense was incurred by the War Office in connection with the 4th June celebrations in North Africa?

Mr. A. Henderson: Inquiries are being made into this, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have received a report.

Mr. Douglas: Is it the view of the War Office that the campaign in North Africa was won on the playing fields of Eton, and that that justified the issue of public stores for a private celebration?

Mr. Henderson: I hope my hon. Friend will wait until we have ascertained whether public stores were used.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend agree with me for once, that perhaps it would be a good thing if the total warriors in this House allowed the real soldiers to have a bit of fun when they want it?

Masseuses (Commissions)

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for War why the same prospect of advance to commissioned rank given to nurses and to physiotherapists in overseas Forces is refused to women specially trained as masseuses and to other physiotherapists; and whether he will receive a deputation from the chartered society on the subject?

Mr. A. Henderson: Masseuses are employed by the War Department as civilians under conditions of employment accepted by the Chartered Society of Massage and Medical Gymnastics. This arrangement is working satisfactorily, and I am not satisfied that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would improve the present service of masseuses. But I will gladly see a deputation on the subject.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not true that the chartered society entirely disagree with that statement and are very anxious to have commissioned rank, which is not the same thing as being employed as civilians from outside the Army?

Mr. Henderson: The deputation will have an opportunity of conveying those views.

Dr. Howitt: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware how keenly this is desired, not only by the chartered society but by the medical profession, and if he considers granting commissioned rank, will he also bear in mind for the good of the Service how important it will be only to grant commissions to those who have had full training and hold the diploma of the chartered society?

Mr. Henderson: I will bear all relevant facts in mind.

Overseas Personnel (Leave)

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider giving to men who have been serving in His Majesty's Forces abroad, upon landing in this country on leave, a sum of money in excess of £5, especially when they have in a bank or with the authorities an account to their credit much larger than this amount?

Mr. A. Henderson: A soldier landing in this country normally proceeds to a unit or place of reception, at which a payment is made in respect of pay and ration allowance before he proceeds on leave. At the same time, a payment can be made of any balance, however large, known to be standing to his credit in his account. The pay accounts of soldiers in India are, however, kept in India, and instructions have therefore been issued that payments on account may be made to such soldiers (to warrant officers £7, to sergeants £5, to corporals and privates £3) in addition to pay and ration allowance for the leave period. Payments in excess of these sums might put the individual's account seriously into debt. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Army authorities cannot relate payments to credits standing in private banking accounts.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has given further consideration to the granting of leave to those men of His Majesty's Forces who have achieved so much in North Africa, especially in cases where they have served abroad for periods of five years and more?

Mr. Henderson: Officers and men with six or more years of continuous service abroad are being transferred to the home establishment in so far as shipping and the military situation permit. On the general question, I would refer my hon. Friend

to the answer given on 15th April by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Mr. Daggar: It is because in my opinion that reply was very unsatisfactory that I put this Question down. Does not my hon. and learned Friend consider that men who have served five years abroad should have some consideration with regard to leave?

Mr. Henderson: We had better deal with those who have been abroad for six years before we deal with those who have been abroad for five years. We are dealing with the six-year men as fast as we can.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is not my hon. and learned Friend aware that dissatisfaction was caused in the North African Forces because men were allowed to think before the battle that there would be a reasonable chance of their getting home afterwards, only to be told that it would not be possible? Would it not be possible in future to see that there is not this misunderstanding?

Mr. Henderson: I have not seen any evidence which justifies my hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Hogg: I will send some.

Eritrea and Italian Somaliland (Administration)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish a report on the administration of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland since its capture?

Mr. A. Henderson: General information regarding the administration of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland since their capture has appeared in the Press from time to time. I regret that a report of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend is not available, but if he requires information on any particular aspect of the administration, I shall do my best to let him have it.

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that we have administered these countries for two years and the methods and principles we have used are likely to be an example in the future administration of captured enemy territories, is it not important that a comprehensive report should be presented to Parliament of the principles we have followed and the results we have achieved?

Mr. Henderson: I would not like the House to take the view that no reports are being made, because the chief administrator reports regularly to the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, to whom he is responsible. These reports are in the nature of operational reports and are, therefore, not available for publication.

Mr. Astor: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider getting a selection of these reports ready for publication to this House if I put down a Question in a month's time?

Mr. Henderson: I prefer to rest on the statement I made two minutes ago that I will gladly give my hon. Friend any information he may desire.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the occupied enemy territory administration in Eritrea has instructions to give preference to anti-Fascists as against Fascists, and to remove all Fascist slogans from the walls; and whether the half-yearly reports of that administration are available to Members of this House?

Mr. Henderson: If my hon. Friend is referring to the employment of Italians in the administration, the answer is that Fascists are not employed in it and anti-Fascists are. Fascist slogans have been removed. The administration issue no reports comparable to the half-yearly reports issued in peace-time by Colonial Governments.

Mr. Bartlett: Could my hon. and learned Friend say whether there has yet been a definite policy for the reorientation of education, and if there has been such a policy could the House have particulars about it?

Mr. Henderson: I think the question of preventing any Fascist education being given in schools has been dealt with and that Regulations have been issued with the object of preventing it.

1939–43 Star (Anti-Aircraft Defences)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 1939–43 war medal will be awarded to personnel serving in the anti-aircraft defence of Great Britain who have been killed or wounded in action with the enemy?

Mr. A. Henderson: I presume my hon. and gallant Friend is referred to the 1939–

43 Star. I would ask him to await the further announcement to be made in due course.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the men who have been killed or wounded in this service have served their country and given just as valuable services as those officers and men who have been on the staff and served at the bases stationed overseas?

Mr. Henderson: There will be no difference between us on that point.

Pay Accounts and Income Tax (Overseas Personnel)

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by other ranks serving in the Army overseas by reason of the delay in obtaining statements of account of pay and allowances, owing to reference having to be made to the United Kingdom where the records are kept; and whether, as has been promised in Middle East General Orders, such statements are now sent by microgram?

Mr. A. Henderson: I am aware of the difficulties mentioned, and I can give an assurance that everything possible is being done to furnish formations and units serving overseas with essential information regarding the pay accounts of soldiers. This information is transmitted to areas overseas by fast air mail or by microgram. Full use is made of the microgram service available to the Middle East.

Major Nield: Will my hon. and learned Friend state the average time taken for a soldier to get his pay and allowance statement?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that Question down.

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of dissatisfaction among other ranks in the Army overseas who are liable for Income Tax at the delay in being informed of the amount of their Income Tax assessment; and whether he will take steps, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to remedy the position?

Mr. Henderson: I have no evidence of any general dissatisfaction among other ranks overseas over their Income Tax. Such delays in notification of assessments


as arise are due, mainly, to war-time difficulties of communication with stations abroad. In the case of the Middle East arrangements have recently been made which should reduce the delay referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. Paymasters in this country inform the Regimental Paymaster in the Middle East by microgram of the other ranks there liable to Income Tax and he serves the forms. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to cause inquiries to be made if he will send me details.

Pay Book

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider amending the form of the soldier's pay book so as to add a column showing weekly the balance of pay as is done in the Union Defence Force?

Mr. A. Henderson: The pay book is so designed that the entries made in it by company commanders are reduced to the minimum, particularly while units are in the field. The book already contains particulars which usually enable a soldier's approximate entitlement to be arrived at readily. The pay account maintained by the paymaster in this country reflects the many variations due to automatic increases in pay, a number of varying allowances, contributions made by the soldier and charges made against him. I regret therefore that it would be well-nigh impossible satisfactorily to implement my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion which would result in a considerable increase in the paper work to be done by units. For soldiers serving at home the exact particulars can usually be obtained from the paymaster almost by return of post. In the case of soldiers serving overseas, arrangements have been made for paymasters to notify regularly similar particulars by means of the microgram service or other speedy means of communication available.

Anti-Aircraft Defences, Hull

Colonel Sir 4. Lambert Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the anti-aircraft guns protecting Hull are now entirely manned by the Home Guard; and to what extent it has recently been the custom to withdraw the crews of those guns at midnight?

Mr. A. Henderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." All these anti-aircraft defences are fully manned during the hours of darkness.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the liaison between the men at the guns and Fighter Command, which is responsible for giving the order to open fire, is sufficiently close to obviate any delay?

Mr. Henderson: I think so, Sir. If the guns do not fire during a raid there is, I think, a very good reason. It may be there is a fighter overhead, and that makes it impossible to fire in the circumstances.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the raid in question bombs were falling on Hull for at least five minutes before a single anti-aircraft gun opened fire?

Mr. Henderson: All I can say is that the operational control of guns is in the hands of Fighter Command of the Air Ministry. That is the position.

Low Medical Category Personnel

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War, what steps are being taken to discharge men of C medical category so that they may take up positions in civilian life and be of more use to the country than they are in their present Army occupations?

Mr. A. Henderson: A soldier who cannot carry out a full day's work in suitable employment is discharged from the Army. But it is not necessary to discharge all men whose medical grading is C. The importance from the point of view of man-power of making full use of them in the Army is fully realised. One of the functions of the Army Selection Centres, which my right hon. Friend briefly described in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) on r6th March, is to classify men of low medical category and allot them to duties where full use can be made of them, for example, as trained store-men, telephone orderlies and on certain clerical duties. Men suffering from defects which can be cured are given special remedial training. Many of the category C men are thus able to take the place of men in higher medical categories and release them for combatant service.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a considerable number of these category C men who could carry on quite well in civil life and do a useful job of war work but who are steadily deteriorating under Army conditions, and will he not have another comb out of these C men with a view to their discharge to civil life?

Mr. Henderson: I think the results achieved by the Army selec4on centres have justified the setting up of those centres, and I would assure my hon. Friend that whatever may be the calls of industry there are jobs to be done in the Army which, if not done by men in C category, would have to be done by men in A or B categories.

Mr. Turton: Will my hon. and learned Friend encourage the officers commanding training depots to send such men on leave until full time work can be found for them in the Army, to stop them from hanging about for jobs and not having sufficient work to do?

Mr. Henderson: I would prefer that my hon. Friend should give me particulars of cases where men are hanging about.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox:: Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that insufficient attention is paid to the fact that these men would be much more useful to the war effort in civil life?

Mr. Cluse: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have already sent to the War Office particulars of the case of a key man in the clothing industry who is now engaged in going on errands for an officer's wife?

Mr. Henderson: I have no doubt that that case is being investigated, and before answering I should like to have the result of the investigation.

Marriage Allowance

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will outline the alterations in the regulations governing the payment of marriage allowances in respect of separated wives?

Mr. A. Henderson: An outline of the alterations was announced by my right hon. Friend on 8th December last, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

Miss Ward: Can my hon. and learned Friend say with regard to the scheme now

in operation that its initial stages will he approved by the other Service Ministers, or did he disagree with the original scheme put forward?

Mr. Henderson: I would prefer the hon. Lady to ask the other Service Ministers whether they agreed.

Ulster Home Guard

Mr. Messer: asked the Secretary of State for War why medical officers in the Home Guard in Northern Ireland are granted only honorary rank whilst those in England are granted commissions; and whether he proposes to take steps to corect this anomaly?

Mr. A. Henderson: For administrative convenience, the Ulster Home Guard forms part of the Ulster Special Constabulary, and no question of granting commissions in the Army can arise until such time as that force is mustered when it becomes an integral part of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Mr. Messer: Is it not part of the Armed Forces, even although attached to the Irish Constabulary?

Mr. Henderson: No, but when it Is mustered it will become part of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Messer: Does that mean that then they will be granted commissions?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Auxiliary Territorial Service

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for War how many members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are now working at the War Office.

Mr. A. Henderson: Six hundred and thirty-two.

Home Guard, Scotland (Pipers' Kilts)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disappointment among pipers in the Home Guard throughout Scotland as a result of his order forbidding the issue of kilts for these bands; and whether he will allow kilts to be issued to Scottish Home Guard pipers so far as they are in stock?

Mr. A. Henderson: Bands are not authorised for Home Guard units, and I regret that the issue of kilts as suggested by my hon. Friend would not be justified.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that it is reported to the Home Guard that there are plenty of kilts in stock, and is he aware that it is also reported that when the kilted pipers led the march of the 51st Division into Tripoli even the Prime Minister and all others present were thrilled; and if pipers in the home of the 51st Division in Stirlingshire and the counties of Scotland are to be deprived of the kilt in order to economise in cloth, it would remove the spirit of a nation and is bad economy?

Mr. Henderson: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question is, I am quite sure, in the affirmative. The answer to the first part is in the negative. My information is that the supply position is such that the kilts have been entirely withdrawn even from Regular units, except for the pipe bands of the Foot Guards and of the Scottish and Irish regiments.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the Minister not arrange that when special parades are taking place kilts should be issued for that occasion?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot give that assurance.

Cadets (Boots)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider making a free issue of boots to Army cadets?

Mr. A. Henderson: I regret that the supply position does not enable such an issue to be made.

Sir T. Moore: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, these cadets are now attached to and are doing their training to a large extent with the Home Guard, and does he not therefore think that in the interests of the cadets and of their training the same treatment with regard to equipment and clothing should be given to them?

Mr. Henderson: Whatever view I might take, I am afraid I must face up to the factual position, and that is that there is a shortage and that there must be some regard to priorities.

Sir Granville Gibson: How can there be a shortage of boots when new contracts for Army boots and for leather for uppers of Army boots are being placed for greatly

reduced quantities? There are millions of pairs in stock.

Mr. Henderson: I take it there has been a shortage of boots in relation to the demand.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that 500,000 pairs of secondhand Army boots have been sold to a dealer in Manchester?

Despatch Riders (Speed Restrictions)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue some more stringent instructions with a view to curtailing the excessive speed at which military despatch riders travel, with special reference to built-up areas?

Mr. A. Henderson: All War Department despatch riders have specific orders to observe certain speed limits wherever they may be. In built-up areas they must in addition observe the speed restrictions in force there by law. The military and civil police are well aware of these instructions and take steps to see that they are obeyed. I do not consider that further instructions are necessary.

Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really not aware of the obvious disregard that many of them show every day for the comfort and safety of the civilian population, which tends to bring unfair criticism upon the Army generally, which it does not deserve? Will he therefore consider the issue of more urgent and drastic instructions which may limit this practice?

Mr. Henderson: The instructions are sufficiently drastic. It is a question of whether they are enforced.

Sir William Davison: Was it not reported some time ago that 90 per cent. of these despatch riders were in hospital?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is not speed the very essence of success in this war?

MISSING PERSONNEL, FAR EAST

Mr. Jewson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that parents of men captured at Singapore are now receiving postcards from them although their names have not been notified by the War Office; and whether he will state the present position?

Mr. A. Henderson: Yes, Sir. Despite urgent protests and representations the Japanese Government are still considerably in arrears with their cabled notification of the names of prisoners of war, and it has occurred in certain cases that mail from the prisoners has reached their next-of-kin in advance of the official notification of capture.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the full list of names been published of those who have been found?

Mr. Henderson: I do not know whether one list has been published, but notification is always sent to the relatives as soon as we receive information about a particular man.

SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions the Co-ordinating Committee of the Services, on matters relating to pay and allowances and allied questions, has met?

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer the hon. Lady to the first part of the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on 4th May.

Miss Ward: Would my hon. and learned Friend outline the procedure when he disagrees with the policy of the other Service Ministers represented by the Service chiefs on the Co-ordinating Committee?

Mr. Henderson:: That is entirely another question.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received further information regarding men who were formerly detained as prisoners of war in P.G. 154 and who were subsequently removed to Italy; whether communication has been re-established with all men who have been removed to other camps; and whether, in the case of men who have not been located, he is still pursuing inquiries through the agency of the Protecting Power, in order that missing men may be traced and brought into communication with their relatives and friends in this country?

Mr. A. Henderson: I regret that I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 22nd June to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). Inquiries are, of course, still being made through the Protecting Power.

Mr. Grenfell: Is there any confirmation of the story that the lives of many of these men were lost in transit to the mainland from North Africa?

Mr. Henderson: We have had reports from a number of survivors. The difficulty is that we are not aware of the identity of those who were originally in camp 154, and that is why it is difficult to give detailed information in relation to those who may have been there.

Mr. Grenfell: Will my hon. and learned Friend pursue the inquiry in order to establish, from their associates, whether those who were known to have been in camp 154 are likely to be alive or not?

Mr. Henderson: Inquiries are still being made, and, if necessary, inquiries along those lines will be made.

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiries to be made into conditions at prison Campo 51 and 70 in Italy, as, according to reports of repatriated prisoners food supplies are below standard and the accommodation provided does not give protection from climatic changes?

Mr. Henderson: Camp 51 is a transit camp for prisoners of war arriving in Italy and is believed to be unoccupied, all British prisoners of war having been transferred to permanent camps, in which conditions are appreciably better. I am informed that the stoves ordered for Camp 70 were not installed last winter, but I hope that the representations about the heating of camps in Italy, which have led to improvements at other camps, will have the same result at this camp. I am not aware that the food supplied by the Italians at Camp 70 is below the standard at other Italian camps. Food parcels sufficient to give each prisoner one parcel a week since the beginning of the year have been despatched from Geneva and I have no reason to suppose they have not reached the camp. I will, however, have further inquiries made.

Mr. Burke: Has the Minister not seen the reports circulating in all parts of the country from men who have been repatriated about the conditions in these camps, especially about Camp 51, where, it is said, men have been for 14 weeks in tents under a tropical sun by day and at nighttime in freezing cold?

Mr. Henderson: I have said that further inquiries are being made.

AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND (CRAFTSMEN)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the shortage of essential craftsmen, such as joiners and blacksmiths, in certain parts of rural Scotland now jeopardises agricultural output; and whether he will secure the release from the Services of key workers in cases where the agricultural efficiency of a particular district is suffering by reason of their absence?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The Department of Agriculture is in constant touch with the Ministry of Labour and National Service and with the Service Departments about the deferment or release of individual key workers of this type. A number of deferments and some temporary releases have been arranged. If the hon. Member has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiries made, if he cares to supply me with details.

MINISTERS' SALARIES (INCOME TAX)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that Ministers who are Members of the Commons House of Parliament are not in receipt of salaries as Members of Parliament and, accordingly, cannot claim for Income Tax purposes against their salaries as Ministers the expenses which are deductible against their salaries as Members of Parliament, he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider the situation, more particularly as it affects junior Ministers?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): This matter was discussed by the House during the Debates on the Ministers of the Crown Bill, 1937. Undoubtedly, the

position as stated by my hon. Friend discloses a case requiring consideration, in respect of junior Ministers. The Government have not, up to the present, felt themselves able to make any recommendation to the House.

Sir H. Williams: Would not my right hon. Friend give the matter further consideration, having regard to the greatly changed circumstances since 1937?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not being in the Government sufficient recompense for excessive Income Tax?

The Prime Minister: I hope that is personal experience.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION, WALES

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the strong desire in Wales for the institution of a Welsh Office under a Secretary of State for Wales; and whether he will make a statement of the Government's intentions in the matter?

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 10th June last, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies).

Mr. Grenfell: In view of the unqualified success of the Scottish Office in this and previous Administrations, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the extension of that very good example for the improvement of government in another part of the country?

The Prime Minister: I think that we have a tendency to have too many Ministers. One must look very jealously at new claimants.

Mr. Grenfell: If evidence were furnished to the Prime Minister to show that there is an overwhelming desire on the part of the people of Wales for this step, would he then consider it?

The Prime Minister: This is a large topic to be dealt with at Question Time. I am well aware of the sentiment cherished by the people of Wales and also of the very warm desire to gratify those sentiments which is the instinct of the English and


Scottish people. At the same time, to create this entirely new Department in present circumstances would not, I think, be practicable.

Mr. Grenfell: In view of the fact that the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman listened to this case, and in view of the increased demand for this change, would he not extend an invitation to the people who wish to state the case to him?

The Prime Minister: I think I prefer to be a little backward in that matter.

PAINT AND VARNISH INDUSTRY (MAN-POWER)

Major Gates: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Ministry of Labour and National Service, by calling up and directing employees of small firms of the paint and varnish industry, is in effect nullifying the agreement reached by the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade not to concentrate this industry; and whether he will take the necessary steps to stop this practice and to ensure that there is complete co-ordination between Government Departments on questions of Government policy affecting this industry?

The Prime Minister: If this Question were put to the Minister of Labour and National Service, he would, no doubt, after due notice, be able to give a suitable reply.

DOMESTIC SERVICE

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister what Members of the Government are responsible for deciding the balance to be maintained between the domestic service requirements of the civilian population as against those of the Services?

The Prime Minister: All questions relating to the balance between the manpower requirements of the civil population as against those of the Services are decided by the War Cabinet, which, of course, obtains advice from the Minister of Labour and National Service and other Ministers concerned. If a particular issue were raised by Question or in Debate, there would be no difficulty in selecting the Minister to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Occupied Italian Islands (Sterling-Lira Exchange)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate has been fixed for the sterling-lira exchange in the occupied Italian islands; and what are the basic considerations which guide him in making this and similar decisions?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I propose to make a statement about this and allied matters at a convenient opportunity. As my right hon. Friend will realise, the basic consideration which governs the fixing of an appropriate rate of exchange is that it should take into account all relevant economic factors, including the level of local prices and wages and other costs.

Government Loans (Bank Conversions)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a statement showing the total amount of conversion into 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. Government stocks made by the banks from the commencement of hostilities to 30th June, 1943; and whether it is the intention of the Government to continue on the same scale these operations until the cessation of hostilities?

Sir K. Wood: I assume that my hon. Friend's inquiry relates to Treasury deposit receipts, which were first issued to the banks on 1st July, 1940. Between that date and 30th June, 1943, the totals of Treasury deposit receipts encashed and the proceeds applied to new 2½ per cent. Government Loans were approximately £525,000,000 and to 3 per cent. Loans approximately £225,000,000. In reply to the second part, the expected advantages of the scheme have been fully realized, and I see no reason to modify the right of the banks to encash Treasury deposit receipts before maturity to cover subscriptions to Government loans on behalf of their customers or of themselves. The extent to which that right is exercised is, of course, a matter within the discretion of the banks.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his assumption is correct? I did refer to Treasury deposit receipts.

Agricultural Workers (Income Tax)

Mr. Astor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under present conditions the entire overtime earnings of agricultural and other workers are often withheld at source to pay off arrears of Income Tax, and that in consequence, workers are often unwilling to work overtime; and, as this is liable to produce serious consequences to farmers during the harvest season, what steps does he propose to remedy it?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend would let me have details of the type of case he has in mind.

Bank Deposits

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the total deposits held by the clearing banks on 30th June, 1940, amounted to £2,469,000,000, and that this sum had increased by 31st December, 1942, to £3,629,000,000; and what profit accrues to the Treasury from these increased deposits?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, any profit made by the banks from the use of the funds at their disposal is chargeable to tax.

Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the difference of £1,200,000,000 represented by these figures is new money created by the banks and that, as he has just explained to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), they can, of course, convert all that money into long-distance loans, at 2½ per cent., to their own advantage of £30,000,000 a year, and to the disadvantage of the country? Why does he not take steps through the Treasury to deal with that situation?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member must realise that he and I will never agree on this matter.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am correct and that he is wrong?

Railings Removal (Compensation)

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House under what Regulation

and by what procedure can a person whose iron fencing has been removed by the Government for war purposes obtain compensation in respect of the cost of replacement of some form of fencing to protect his property, either now or after the war, apart from any payment made to him in respect of the metal contents of the fencing removed?

Sir K. Wood: There is no Regulation which provides for the replacement or the payment of the cost of replacement of iron fencing taken under Regulation 50(B).

Sir W. Davison: Why is a person whose fences are removed by the Government for war purposes not entitled to compensation in respect of the cost he will incur of replacing them either now or after the war, when, if other property is taken from an individual for war purposes he is entitled to compensation for replacement? Why should this exception be made?

Sir K. Wood: I have already explained that compensation is payable and that it is not the policy to take railings used for essential purposes in connection with the land.

Sir W. Davison: Is the Chancellor aware that the only compensation payable is for the metal contained in the railings and that the cost of putting up a new fence to protect land or buildings is not included? Is he also aware that this serious injustice is caused by a qualification in brackets to Defence Regulation 50B (8) which limits the payment of compensation by the words
otherwise than by the provision of a substitute for the fixtures"—
that is for new fencing? May I ask that these words in brackets be taken out of the Regulation?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot agree with the hon. Member; there are a good many cases in which complete compensation is not payable.

Non-Contributory Pensions (Income Tax)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas payers of Income Tax are free from any payment of tax on the increment value of National Savings Certificates, the persons in receipt of noncontributory pensions have the annual increment value taken into account in deter-


mining the amount of pension to which they are entitled; and why this penalty is imposed on one class of pensioner as against any other class?

Sir K. Wood: The position to which my hon. Friend refers is statutory, both as regards the exemption from Income Tax and as regards the calculation of means for the purpose of non-contributory old age pensions. The Income Tax exemption dates from the institution of War Savings Certificates during the last war, and no further class of security exempt from Income Tax has since been placed on general issue. I could not accept the suggestion that, because this exceptional concession in regard to Income Tax has been continued, capital invested in National Savings Certificates cannot fairly be taken into account in other connections.

Sir R. Young: As the increment of the interest is added monthly or annually, does that mean that these pensions are reviewed annually in so far as increments are concerned in investments of that character?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to look at that, and I will let him know.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is not the real reason why Saving Certificates are exempted from Income Tax that those are the terms under which they are issued?

Sir K. Wood: I think that is so.

Ex-Company Directors (Compensation)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor. of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the accounts of the Brush Electrical Engineering Company, Limited, published in "The Accountant" of 12th June, of which a copy has been sent to him with special reference to the item in the profit and loss account, compensation paid to a former director £8,039: whether this amount was paid free of tax; whether this amount has been allowed as an expense in calculating Excess Profits Tax; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent large compensations to directors which involve the Treasury in the loss of revenue?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I cannot supply my hon. Friend with information regarding the affairs of particular

taxpayers since, as he will be aware, the law requires all persons engaged in the assessment of the Income Tax and the Excess Profits Tax to take an oath of secrecy in relation to the assessment. With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question which is of general application, Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1940, provides for the disallowance as a deduction for Excess Profits Tax purposes, of any expense in excess of the amount which is reasonable and necessary.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is understood that such payments are free from Income Tax, and is he not entitled to take steps to see that changes which are not made in the interest of the war, and which may be made for purposes of nepotism are not exempted from tax?

Sir K. Wood: I should like to study that before replying.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the person referred to in the Question is now in the service of the Ministry of Supply, and has been for some time, and is the Chancellor aware that, £8,000 tax free represents a gross income of about £120,000?

Sir K. Wood: No, I have not all the information which the hon. Member has.

Mr. Stokes: Does he not realise that this gentleman will be better off than the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare)?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL GRADES)

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the number of vacancies in clerical grades in the Defence Ministries, reserved under peace-time arrangements to be filled by ex-Regular members of His Majesty's Forces, can, after the war, be spread through the clerical class in all Departments in order to make better use of the varied acquired experience of the said entrants?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I am not at present in a position to make any statement about changes which may be made after the war in the method of recruiting to permanent Civil Service posts.

OFFICIAL REPORT, HOUSE OF COMMONS (PUBLIC LIBRARIES)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will have copies of Hansard placed in the public libraries free of charge?

Mr. Assheton:: No, Sir. Public libraries can already obtain Hansard at half price, that is, £1 a year for the Lords Debates and £1 5s a year for the Commons Debates, and I think that this is a sufficient concession.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Would the Treasury consider issuing Hansard at a price which the general public can afford?

Mr. Assheton: That is another question.

FUEL AND POWER

Schoolchildren, Rural Areas (Petrol Allowance)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the hardships caused in rural areas by the refusal of all petrol allowances to take children to school, or to the nearest omnibus stop, if the distance is under three miles; and whether he will consider reducing this minimum distance to one mile?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): There is no fixed minimum distance limiting the discretion of Regional petroleum officers in this matter, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to introduce one.

Mr. Astor: Is the Minister aware that under the present practice many children of five years of age have to walk three miles to school and reach the school in a condition much too tired to learn anything? Will he draw up instructions to his officers to adopt a more sympathetic line?

Major Lloyd George: My officers have full discretion in this matter. If the hon. Member will let me have some particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that where necessity can be shown a petrol allowance is made?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, there are several instances.

Miners (Home Guard)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure that miners already working seven-and-a-half hours for six days a week at the coal face are not liable for service with the Home Guard involving an extra six hours' training every week?

Major Lloyd George: I have no reason to believe that miners desire to escape the duty and the privilege which they share with their fellow countrymen of national service. But arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service provide for appeal to an Independent Tribunal on grounds of medical unfitness or personal hardship and there is also machinery in co-operation with the military authorities for ensuring that Home Guard duties do not interfere with miners' work in the pits.

Mr. Hannah: Is this not rather too much work for almost anybody each week?

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister not aware that with this training which the miner has to do with the Home Guard, Civil Defence, and so on, after a hard day's work down the pits, it is impossible for him to keep up his work, and that is one of the reasons for absenteeism?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept the latter part of the hon. Member's suggestion. I have had a good many talks with the men themselves on this matter, and arrangements have been made by which in cases such as that referred to, where it appears that the miner is doing exceptionally hard work, there is liaison between the military authorities and my Department. We have been able to come to a very satisfactory arrangement.

Domestic Coal Stocks, Burnley

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the local coal merchants in Burnley have intimated that present supplies are only sufficient to provide householders with one cwt. per week and therefore it is impossible for householders to follow the Minister's advice to store coal against the winter months; and what steps he is taking to remedy this?

Major Lloyd George: Domestic coal supplies in the Burnley district average about 1¼ cwt. per week for each householder and, as many consumers do not


need to burn coal throughout the summer, a considerable proportion of the supplies corning forward during the summer months can be used for building up consumers' stocks against next winter's requirements.

Mr. Burke: Can the Minister tell me exactly what the quantity of supply in Burnley has been for the last month or so?

Major Lloyd George: One and a quarter cwt. per week for allocation as per registration has been going in there. The position at Burnley is very much better than last year. As regards stocks, the North-West area, which contains Burnley, although it does not follow that Burnley is the same, is one of the highest in the
country.

Mr. Burke: Does the figure which the Minister has given as going into Burnley take into account the large quantity which goes to the mills?

Major Lloyd George: No, this is per household and has nothing to do with the mills at all.

Coke Stocks, Midlands

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that thousands of tons of coke are lying at the gas works and ovens in Birmingham and the Midlands, and that merchants will not distribute it because the maximum price for delivery is fixed at l0s. a ton by the local fuel overseer; and will he give instructions to increase the maximum price so that this bulky fuel can be distributed without a loss, thereby reducing the demand for coal?

Major Lloyd George: Stocks of coke at the gas works and coke-ovens in Birmingham, the Midlands and the North Midlands are somewhat higher than is customary, and, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, I am pressing consumers of house coal to take a proportion of their requirements for consumption, and for winter stocking, in alternative fuels, such as coke, which are relatively plentiful at the moment. An increase in the maximum price of coke to the domestic consumer would not, of course, in itself, help in this direction, and I am more concerned to secure a reduction in the price, though I recognise that, in certain circumstances, and especially where the margins obtained by merchants on coke

distribution are less than l0s. a ton, some increase in margins is likely to be necessary. I have issued instructions for the matter to be settled as quickly as possible.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that the price of haulage for coke by Birmingham Corporation is l0s. a ton? How can coke merchants be expected to haul it at the same price and carry their overheads?

Major Lloyd George: That is what is being looked into.

Mr. Higgs: Will the price be increased?

Major Lloyd George: That I cannot tell until investigations are completed.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Minister do all he can to help Birmingham?

Sir R. Young: Is the Minister aware that: coke is selling in London at a clearer price even than coal?

Major Lloyd George: It varies in various districts. The cost of transport is greater in London.

Sentenced Miners (Sympathetic Strikes)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the tonnage of coal lost as the result of the recent sympathetic strikes resulting from the imprisonment of 20 men in the Tareni and surrounding pits in South Wales, and similar statistics covering the whole of the coalfields since the outbreak of hostilities; and whether, in view of the loss of production on this score, he has now considered the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that some other means should be devised of dealing with offences that were not punishable in law before the outbreak of war than court proceedings, fines and imprisonment?

Major Lloyd George: The total estimated tonnage lost at Tareni Colliery and at other pits in South Wales from which men withdrew their labour in sympathy is 15,280 tons in the two weeks ended 26th June, 1943. Figures of output lost through sympathetic stoppages covering the whole of the coalfields since the outbreak of hostilities are not available. My Department submitted evidence to the Select Committee on National Expenditure of a scheme which has been voluntarily accepted by the men at certain collieries in Yorkshire, whereby bad


cases of absenteeism are dealt with summarily at the pit. I am not prepared at this stage to pass judgment on the results, but, if successful, it will greatly reduce the number of cases which it is necessary to take to court.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister not seriously consider whether this policy of prosecuting, fining and sending miners to prison achieves the object he has in view? Is he not losing by this policy more coal than would otherwise be lost?

Major Lloyd George: As my hon. Friend knows, we are experimenting all the time; and this experiment to which he refers shows great promise, as far as it has gone. I confess that we would far rather deal with it that way than the other.

Colliery Explosion, North Derbyshire

Mr. Oliver: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is in a position to state the cause of the accident which occurred on 28th June at the Coppice Pit of the' Shipley Colliery Company, Heanor, and the present condition of the injured workmen?

Major Lloyd George: I regret to inform the House that an explosion of firedamp occurred on Monday, 28th June, at Coppice Colliery, North Derbyshire, following the firing of a ripping shot in a gate road. The effects of the explosion were fortunately confined to a comparatively small area, but seven men were burned, of whom three have since died from their injuries and two others are in a serious condition. I cannot at present state the cause of the ignition, but a full investigation is being made as speedily as possible. Meanwhile, the House will wish to record its deep sympathy with the relatives and dependants of those who have lost their lives and its earnest hope that the injured may have a safe and speedy recovery.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

Utility Furniture, South Wales

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that house furnishers in South Wales are unable to obtain supplies of utility furniture; and what steps are being taken to ensure a fair distribution of the available supplies?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I am aware that there are delays in deliveries of utility furniture in South Wales, and, in order to increase production there, I have recently designated two further factories.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that on a recent census in about seven areas it was found that the average delay, from the order by the customer to delivery, was about 10 weeks? What is he doing about that?

Mr. Dalton: We are watching the position very closely. Utility furniture has turned out very popular, and we are doing our utmost to build up a sufficient supply to prevent these delays, but we have to exercise very great economy in labour and materials.

Mr. Walkden: Is not io weeks a long time?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is this not just the kind of question that should be also looked into by a Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Dalton: That might lead to more inter-departmental delay.

Monopolies and Cartels

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings before the courts in America, seeking to restrain certain firms under the anti-trust law from monopolistic practices; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard consumers in this country from the operation of similar monopolistic practices?

Major Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to appoint a committee to inquire into the effect on British export trade of cartel agreements which have been entered into between firms in this country and those in other countries?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the public interest is not prejudiced by the operations of international cartels in which British firms are concerned?

Mr. Dalton: My attention has been drawn to the proceedings mentioned, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been asked, at my request, to furnish particulars of the charges made. As


my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) will appreciate, a considerable safeguard for consumers in this country is afforded by our existing arrangements for price control. I would also refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave on 23rd March last to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Mr. Bellenger: When my right hon. Friend Las the report from our Ambassador in Washington on the charges that have been made, will he cause an inquiry to be held in this country as to the British Company, I.C.I., against whom the allegations are being made?

Mr. Dalton: I think that it would be better for us first to get the facts from the Ambassador's report. But, since my hon. Friends have raised the matter of I. C. I., I think I should tell the House that I saw Lord McGowan and Lord Melchett yesterday, and that they repeated the denial already made by Lord McGowan of the allegations against I.C.I., and in particular of the serious allegation that they had been trading with the enemy. They placed themselves entirely at the disposal of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of that serious allegation, of trading with the enemy, does my right hon. Friend not think that something inure is required than a mere denial by two directors of the company?

Mr. Dalton: I think we had better wait until we get the facts.

Knitted Comforts (Home Guard)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements can be made to distribute through the Women's Voluntary Service and similar organisations, wool, for the purpose of providing the Home Guard with knitted comforts, as is done in the case of the other Fighting Services?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Members of the Home Guard, unlike the other Fighting Services, have a full civilian ration in addition to the uniform which is issued to them, and I could not justify a coupon-free supply of wool for comforts.

Perambulators

Mrs. Adamson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able

to make a further statement about the supply of perambulators?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that I have now arranged for an increase in materials sufficient to raise the annual rate of production of perambulators and push chairs, as compared with last year, by more than 30 per cent. It will, of course, be some months before these additional supplies reach the shops, and it is important that full use should continue to be made of second-hand perambulators.

Mrs. Adamson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has earned the gratitude of the mothers of this country by his policy?

Board of Trade Prosecution, Dundee

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the remarks of the sheriff in dismissing, at Dundee, on 17th June, a Board of Trade prosecution, of which he has been informed, in connection with the conduct and actions of the Department's inspectors in their representations as being bona fide customers and, in general, on the practice then obtaining; and whether he will give directions to ensure that conditions such as these will no longer operate?

Mr. Dalton: I am having inquiries made into this case, and, as soon as they are complete, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Clothing Coupons (New-Born Children)

Lady Apsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the issue of a few extra coupons to young mothers immediately after the birth of a child in order that they may buy a completely new outfit?

Mr. Dalton: An expectant mother is entitled to 60 supplementary coupons and, in addition, to a ration for her child, as soon as it is born. I regret that, in present supply conditions, I could not justify a further supplementary issue.

Lady Apsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position of women coming out of the Forces?

Mr. Dalton: That is a slightly different question. I am most anxious to do everything possible, but we are restricted, as my hon. Friend knows, by a very limited supply situation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: What happens in the case of twins?

Mr. Dalton: A double ration is issued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Might I ask the Leader of the House whether he would state the revised Business for the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. In view of the postponement of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill, we propose on the next Sitting Day, after the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Foreign Service Bill; the Coal Bill [Lords], Second Reading; and, if there is time, a Motion to approve the Fish Sales Order.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the postponement of one of the Measures which was to be taken on the next Sitting Day, is my right hon. Friend in a position to give the House any indication of when that Measure will be re-submitted to the House?

Mr. Eden: I hope that we shall be in a position to make our statement about pensions, which I propose should precede the resumption of work on the Bill, one day in the next series of Sittings.

Mr. Buchanan: Are we to take it that it has been decided to re-introduce this Bill, which obviously did not satisfy the House, instead of bringing in another Bill?

Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill has had a Second Reading. I suggest that he should await the statement that we are going to make on the broad position.

Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend going to state what the Royal Warrant will be? Is it to be a comprehensive statement, or will it refer merely to the Bill itself?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the statement will not refer merely to the Bill; it will be a comprehensive statement.

Mr. Speaker: The original Question related to Business for the next Sitting Day only, and now we are going far beyond that day.

UNITED NATIONS FOOD CONFERENCE

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): On 23rd June I undertook to make a statement on the results of the Food Conference recently held at Hot Springs. His Majesty's Government have now had an opportunity to consider the work which the Conference achieved, and I should like to congratulate the United States Government, which convened the Conference, on the successful outcome of this first experiment in comprehensive international discussion of post-war matters. His Majesty's Government have been greatly impressed by the fact that, in the midst of a war, representatives of more than 40 like-minded nations could meet together and achieve general agreement on so many fundamental principles. His Majesty's Government recognise that the resolutions were drawn up in the light of the widely-differing physical, political and economic conditions of the various countries represented, and that the application of the resolutions passed by the Conference will depend on these differences. For their part His Majesty's Government have no hesitation in accepting the resolutions and the obligation to give effect to them in so far as they apply to conditions in the United Kingdom. They will also gladly co-operate with other Governments in seeking ways to give effect to those resolutions which call for concerted action. They will commend the resolutions to the Governments of His Majesty's Colonies, Dependencies and Overseas Territories.
The main object of the Conference was to ensure as far as possible freedom from want of food. The House will have noticed that the third resolution recommends that Governments should immediately begin the task of increasing food resources and improving the diets of their peoples in accordance with the principles and objectives outlined in the findings of the Conference. His Majesty's Government intend, despite the inevitable difficulties which the war entails, to press on with this aim. At the same time, it is clear that freedom from want of food depends largely on matters outside the scope of purely agricultural or nutritional policy. This was fully recognised by the Conference, which took account of the broad questions of inter-


national security and economic expansion which are the necessary background of sustained progress towards freedom from want and a higher standard of living.
Resolution II provides for the establishment of an Interim Commission to carry on the work of the Conference and to prepare a plan for a permanent organisation in the field of food and agriculture. His Majesty's Government intend to participate fully in the work of this Corn-mission and are arranging to appoint a representative. They note with satisfaction that one of the tasks of this Commission will be to draw up a formal declaration or agreement for the consideration of Governments; in this instrument the Governments would recognise their obligation towards their respective peoples and to one another to collaborate in raising levels of nutrition and standards of living for their peoples, and to report to one another on progress made.
Finally, there is the question of production which bears closely on the relief of peoples living in the countries now occupied by the enemy. The Conference was not concerned with the organisation of Relief supplies, but the House will note that due attention was paid to the necessity of increasing supplies of basic foodstuffs, in the period when territories liberated from the enemy will be in need of help from outside. His Majesty's Government are much impressed by the urgency and importance of this problem, and are determined to do all they can for their part to give effect to the resolutions of the Conference on this subject. They earnestly hope that other Governments will do likewise.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has it in mind to issue a White Paper or further information on this matter?

Mr. Eden: A White Paper has been issued concerning the final act of the Conference, a copy of which I have here. We will consider whether any further document might usefully be published.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

John Frederick Gretton, Esq., for the County of Stafford (Burton Division).

GENERAL SIKORSKI

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): We learned yesterday that the cause of the United Nations had suffered a most grievous loss. It is my duty to express the feelings of this House and to pay tribute to the memory of a great Polish patriot and staunch ally, General Sikorski. His death in the air crash at Gibraltar was one of the heaviest strokes we have sustained. From the first dark days of the Polish catastrophe and the brutal triumph of the German war machine until the moment of his death on Sunday night he was the symbol and the embodiment of that spirit which has borne the Polish nation through centuries of sorrow and is unquenchable by agony.
When the organised resistance of the Polish Army in Poland was beaten down, Sikorski's first thought was to organise all Polish elements in France to carry on the struggle, and a Polish Army of over 80,000 men presently took its station on the French fronts. This Army fought with the utmost resolution in the disastrous' battles of 1940. Part fought its way out in good order into Switzerland and is to-day interned there. Part marched resolutely to the sea and reached this Island. Here General Sikorski had to begin his work again. He persevered unwearied and undaunted. The powerful Polish Forces which have now been accumulated and equipped in this country and in the Middle East, to the latter of whom his last visit was paid, now await with confidence and ardour the tasks which lie ahead.
General Sikorski commanded the devoted loyalty of the Polish people, now tortured and struggling in Poland itself. He personally directed that movement of resistance which has maintained a ceaseless warfare against German oppression in spite of sufferings as terrible as any nation has ever endured, and this resistance will grow in power until, at the approach of liberating Armies, it will exterminate the German ravagers of the homeland.
I was often brought into contact with General Sikorski in those years of war. I had a high regard for him and admired his poise and calm dignity amid so many trials and baffling problems. He was a man of remarkable pre-eminence, both as a statesman and a soldier. His agree-


ment with Marshal Stalin of 30th July, 1941, was an outstanding example of his political wisdom. Until the moment of his death he lived in the conviction that all else must be subordinated to the needs of the common struggle and in the faith that a better Europe will arise in which a great and independent Poland will play an honourable part. We British here and throughout the Commonwealth and Empire, who declared war on Germany because of Hitler's invasion of Poland and in fulfilment of our guarantee, feel deeply for our Polish allies in their new loss. We express our sympathy to them, we express our confidence in their immortal qualities and we proclaim our resolve that General Sikorski's work as Prime Minister and commander-in-chief shall not have been done in vain. The House would, I am sure, wish also that their sympathy should be conveyed to Madame Sikorska, who dwells here in England and whose husband and daughter have both been simultaneously killed on duty.
The House has also sustained a personal loss in the death which you, Mr. Speaker, have announced from the Chair of two more of our Members, the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) and the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Brigadier Whiteley), for whom many of us cherished warm feelings of friendship and who were held in respect by all. The list of Members who have given their lives in this second struggle against German aggression is lengthening, but when our House of Commons is rebuilt we shall take care to inscribe their names and titles on its panels to be an example to future generations not unworthy of those we have ourselves received from former times.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The House will, of course, feel unhappy but proud to associate itself with the finely expressed tribute of the Prime Minister. The United Nations have suffered a great loss, and Poland has suffered a great loss. We mourn with Poland in her loss and take pride in the achievements of her lost leader. I would say also that I am sure all of us are deeply grieved by the loss of two of our number on war duties and share with those whom they have left behind that sorrow which they must so deeply feel.

Colonel Harold Mitchell: Perhaps the House will allow me to add a short personal tribute to the memory of General Sikorski. I first met him in France in May, 1940, when he was engaged in re-forming the Polish Army at that time, to which the Prime Minister has just referred in his very eloquent and moving words. The next occasion when I saw the General was a few weeks later in London. It was at the end of a long day during which he had been making the final arrangements with our Government for the evacuation of the Polish troops from France to come over here and continue the struggle, and he was due to go back by air that very next morning to Bordeaux on a hazardous flight. On that occasion, he asked me to help him in the task which he had undertaken, and I was appointed the liaison officer to the Polish Forces for welfare matters. During those first days in Scotland, when the Army was being re-formed, for several weeks he made his headquarters in my home, and I had many opportunities then of talks with him, and was able to appreciate his many fine qualities. I shall never forget the moment when the Polish Forces first took their place alongside our own troops after they had been reorganised. General Sikorski said to the British general concerned, "I am handing over to you the most precious thing left to Poland—her Army." He was a man of great personal magnetism and great charm. He was loved by his men and was never so happy as when with them. He was intensely patriotic, but he loved this country too, and many times he expressed to me the gratitude he felt for the opportunities which Britain had afforded him and his people of preparing for the day of victory. I count it a great privilege to have known him, and, to-day, when Poland mourns the loss of a great leader and the world the loss of a great statesman, I mourn the loss of a valued friend.

Mr. Graham White: I wish in words, whose number will be no measure of their sincerity, to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches with the words which have been spoken by the Prime Minister, who, on this, as on all such occasions, has so admirably expressed the feelings of the House. Our hearts are profoundly moved with sympathy towards Madame Sikorska, President Raczkiewicz, and the


sorely tried Polish people. We cannot estimate the full effects and consequences of this new calamity which has befallen them, but we believe that that spirit which has enabled the Polish people to hold up their heads through centuries of misfortune will also enable them to carry on with undiminished resolution, until the day of liberation arid the opportunities of
peace come to them. In tendering our sympathy to the Polish people, we remember that the United Nations have lost a valiant soldier, one who had rendered great service and who would have rendered even greater service in the time to come; and in expressing our sympathy to them, we also express our sense of our obligations and commitments to the people of Poland.

Captain Alan Graham: I hope that as a member of the Anglo-Polish Committee I may be allowed to add a few words to the eloquent tributes which have already been paid to the memory of the late General Sikorski. Both in public and in private he always seemed to me the very embodiment of chivalry—of that chivalry which never counted the cost before unhesitatingly launching itself whole-heartedly upon some noble and generous enterprise. Like that King of Poland, John Sobieski, who, in 1683, rushed to the defence of Vienna and of Christian civilisation which he saved by his defeat of the Turks, so, in 1940, General Sikorski, gathering every Pole from France and all quarters of the world, came to Britain and brought them to us in our hour of mortal danger. In 1941, when our Ally, Soviet Russia, was hard-pressed, General Sikorski, showing the highest spirit of magnanimity and vision characteristic of true leadership, courageously turned his back on all that Poland had suffered in the past from Russia and pledged to Marshal Stalin his country's friendship and alliance.
Further, in the Government of his own country he steadfastly set his face against any discrimination against Polish citizens of the Jewish race and insisted that if they fulfilled the obligations of citizenship, they were entitled to all the privileges of it. In this he gave a sign of the truly liberal quality of his statesmanship. His practical ability showed itself in the foundation of the most flourishing pre-war port in the Baltic, Gdynia, as well as in his military achievements. He could not live in a Poland that was non-democratic,

and he therefore was enabled, in his 10 years' exile, to give to Europe by his writings many lessons, many prophetic lessons, in the military tactics of modern warfare. He was very reminiscent to many of us of the late Field Marshal Haig in that capacity which he had of completely subordinating all personal feelings and ambitions to his absolute devotion to the cause of those whom he served. Poland and the United Nations have lost a most gifted and devoted servant and one whose example will be an inspiration, not only to his successor, but to all of us as well.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Could the Prime Minister give any indication to the House as to the cause of the accident?

Mr. Speaker: This is not the time for any discussion on the accident.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Pensions and Determination of Needs Bill, without Amendment.

Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Bill, with Amendments.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT) BILL

Lords Amendments to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 49].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[I2TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1943

FORESTRY COMMISSION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding —400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the. 31St day of March, 1944, for a grant in aid of the Forestry Fund.— [Note: £I50,000 has been voted on account.]

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): Twenty-five years ago a Report was presented to this House dealing with, and lamenting, the great dependence of this country upon imported supplies of timber and recommending the appointment of an ad hoc forest authority to carry out a planting programme over a long period of time. The Chairman of that Committee was the late Sir Francis Acland, whom we all remember, and I shall refer to that Committee, as everyone else does, as the Acland Committee. The secretary was the present Sir Roy Robinson, who is Chairman of the Forestry Commission which was set up as the result of the recommendations of that Committee. That Report was drawn during and on the experience of the Great War. To-day we have before us another Report, based on experience of another great war and presented by a Commission which was appointed as a result of the first Report of 25 years ago. The Report we have before us to-day brings the picture up to date; it deals with the doings of the Forestry Commission and the progress of afforestation in Great Britain during The inter-war period and also with the experience which we have in the present war, and it makes a number of recommendations which I shall mention later.
Until 1919 this country had no forest authority, no forestry policy and no forest service, in spite of the fact that a number of important bodies had sat to consider the position of forestry in this country and had made various recommendations for dealing with it. A Select Committee was set up by this House as far back as 1885.

The Board of Agriculture, as it was then, had the authority to deal with forestry and in I902 appointed a Departmental Committee, which made various recommendations which were not carried out. A Royal Commission in 1909 took so serious a view of the position that they advocated the planting of 9,000,000 acres in 60 years—a programme compared with which the recommendations of the present Commission are almost trifling. The Development Commission had authority to deal with planting, and an expenditure of money was authorised for the purpose. By the middle of 1916 the total amount which had been spent in all these years as a result of all these recommendations by the State on planting was £6,754—surely a case of parturient montes—but the actual output or offspring was so small that it can hardly claim the title of ridiculus mus.
If we look at what happened in this country at that time, at the outbreak of the last war, you will find that the Ordnance Survey showed approximately 3,000,000 acres as woodlands, of which 97 per cent. were in private hands, leaving the Crown with the balance of 3 per cent., including the New Forest and the Forest of Dean and other areas which were afterwards handed over to the Forestry Commission. In 1913 tile commercial consumption of timber in this country was approximately 12,500,000 tons, of which 11,500,000 tons were imported from abroad and less than 1,000,000 tons were produced at home, that is, 7 per cent. of the total. I want hon. Members to bear that figure in mind, because I shall have to refer to it again later, and it is of some importance in dealing with the recommendations of the present Forestry Commission. It must not be assumed that 7 per cent. of the commercial requirements represented the whole of the yield of the 3,000,000 acres of woodlands because on a great many properties timber was cut from the owners' woods for estate purposes. On many estates it was the only use to which it was put, and on many others, although a certain contribution was made to the commercial requirements of the country, still more timber was used for the, maintenance of estate buildings, fences, gates and parks.
In regard to the 97 per cent. of those woods which were owned by private people, it must not be assumed that all were badly managed. On a great many


estates forestry management was quite admirable, but, of course, each owner managed as he liked; there was no uniformity. There was good management in many, but, on the other hand, in others there was none at all. The well-managed estates were able to make a most notable contribution to the war effort in the last war. During the war very large quantities of timber were felled in this country, and the home supply, which had been less than 1,000,000 tons in 1913, rose to 4,250,000 tons in the last year of the war, 1918, while imports fell from 11,500,000 tons to 2,500,000 tons, so that one sees that a great deal of the burden of maintaining the requirements of timber fell on the privately-owned woodlands of the country. It is estimated that about 450,000 acres of woodlands were clear felled, while considerable cutting took place in other woodlands.
Then the Acland Committee was set up, and it recommended that a forest authority should be appointed with power and instructions to add 1,777,000 acres to the woodlands of the country in 80 years. The Report was adopted by the Government, and the Forestry Act, 1919, was passed. The Commission which is making the present Report was set up with authority to spend £3,500,000 on planting in the first decade after the war. They got busy at once. Their work was interrupted on two occasions by the Geddes Report and the May Committee, which caused a good deal of dislocation of effort, but, on the whole, in spite of that, the planting has gone on very well. I will mention the figures of its achievements. These figures of acquisition and planting have been achieved without any use, or even threat, of the compulsory powers which the Forestry Commission was given in the Act of 1919. In the first 20 years, up to the outbreak of this war, we had purchased plantable acres to the tune of 438,000 odd.

Mr. Clement Davies: Seven hundred thousand purchased, 400,000 planted.

Sir G. Courthope: No, I think I am accurate—purchased 438,000, leased 216,000, total acquisition, 654,000 acres. The figures of acquisition to which the hon. and learned Member refers include leasing and feuing as well as purchase. I separate them for this reason. I want

to explain how cheaply and how well the Commission has done its job. All that great area has been purchased at an average net cost of £2 7s. 7d. an acre, and the leasing and feuing at an average rental of is. per acre per annum—a very cheap business indeed. In addition to these areas the old Crown forests were taken over amounting to 120,000 acres, half of which were woodland, and the total acquisitions, both purchase and lease, also include approximately 370,000 acres of mountain tops and so on, or agricultural land which is too good to plant and which consequently we do not call plantable. Every single proposal for acquiring land is submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. We do not acquire any land without the approval of those Departments because we are so anxious—indeed the obligation to take care is put upon us—to avoid the planting of land which would be of value for food production. During the 20 years covered by this Report we have actually planted 360,000 acres of soft wood and between 25,000 and 30,000 acres of hard woods and we have assisted by grants the planting of 126,000 acres by private estates. So much for our own work.
On the other hand, our hopes that the privately-owned woodlands which were so heavily felled in the last war would be all replanted have not been fulfilled. In many cases estates were broken up and passed into other hands and a good deal of the 450,000 acres which were felled in the last war has not been replanted since. On the other hand felling has continued. The facts that estates were broken up and a good many people were in financial trouble led to the offer of a great, deal of standing timber which would have been very much better left alone. The result is that at the outbreak of this war there certainly was not more mature timber in the country than there was at the end of the last war. There has been no increase in the amount of mature timber in the country. Fellings have equalled if not exceeded the quantity which has reached maturity. On the other hand there was a large area of young plantations growing up, though of these only the first few years of planting had reached even pit-prop size at the time of the outbreak of this war. The consumption of timber has been fully maintained in spite of the large use of steel and concrete. There was no


drop in the requirement of timber, and in the last five years before the present war, the trade returns showed that we imported an average of £63,000,000 worth a year of timber from abroad, of which about 94 per cent. was soft wood and 6 per cent, hard wood.
Before I go on to say a few words on what is happening in the present war, I should like to complete my survey of what the Forestry Commission have done in the 20 years between the wars. We have gained a great deal of information by survey. We started this war with a much more intimate knowledge of what timber we had in the country than was the case at the beginning of the last war, when very little was known. We have established a first-rate staff. Everyone who has seen their work recognises that a forestry staff has been built up which is quite first-rate. Their technical qualifications are very high. A good deal is done in the way of education. There are two woodmen's schools, and there have been a lot of courses as well, and the education, as far as we have been able to give it, has been good. There has been an immense improvement in forestry technique. We have learnt, by trial and error perhaps, or by application in practice of science, to plant a great deal of land which 20 years ago was considerable unplantable. It is being planted now and shows every indication of carrying most useful timber. Our work in that direction has been watched with the greatest care and has been imitated by forest services all over the world. We have also been paying a good deal of attention to another side of our duties as a Forestry Commission—the questions of amenity and recreation. At first, rather naturally I think, we were anxious to put the whole of our knowledge into producing the maximum number of trees, and we did not perhaps pay enough attention to what they were going to look like and a good many people were rather horrified by hard rectangular blocks of little regimented trees on hillsides. But we are changing all that. We have learnt a great deal more than we knew at first about how to make forestry please as well as pay. In order to help us in that purpose, we have established a most cordial and useful relationship with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. and similar councils in Scotland and Wales, and we get very good advice from them, and they are helping us to give pleasure to the public eye.
On the recreational side of our work our principal task has been the setting-up of national forest parks. We have set up three. When the war came we had plans for others, which I hope will before long materialise. The first of the three is in Argyllshire, where 54,000 acres are enclosed in a national forest park. The success has been most pronounced, and many thousands of people have spent happy week-ends in camping grounds and hostels, enjoying the advantages which we have been able to give close to great industrial centres. There is no doubt that that part of our business has been well done. Then we have organised and carried out four Empire forestry conferences. When I say "we" perhaps I should say our Chairman, Sir Roy Robinson, has organised these conferences which have been of great value throughout the Dominions as well as helping this country.
Here I want to interpose a sentence or two which is not in the Report expressing my own views based on long experience, which I believe are shared by everyone who has had similar experience. The work that we have done—the improvement of technique, the building-up of a fine staff, the creation of these forestry conferences, and so on—has been almost entirely due to the skill and energy of our Chairman, Sir Roy Robinson. In the process he has built up a world-wide reputation as a sylviculturist, and some years before the war his advice was sought by leading foresters all the world over. Only last Friday the British Ecological Society was meeting to consider the records of his experience, and the theories which he has propounded, which appear to me likely to revolutionise forestry practice not only in this country but in all other countries. I felt that I could not leave the subject of our 20 years' work without paying this brief tribute to the man mainly responsible for any success that we have achieved.
I now come to the Report. Instead of having 80 years to carry out the active programme, we have had 20, and although we have a very good staff and information, we have not got the timber. A great deal of the Forestry Commission's staff was transferred at the beginning of the war, together with all the information we had, to the Timber Production Branch of the Ministry of Supply. They have been acquiring and felling very large quantities of timber. The Forestry Commissioners themselves


have contributed a great deal. There has been very heavy cutting of the limited amount of mature timber which the Forestry Commission holds for the Crown in the old forests, and there has been heavy sacrifice of the young plantations which have reached pit-prop size. In spite of all we could do, the great bulk of the burden has for the second time in a generation fallen on the privately-owned woodlands. It is too soon to give accurate figures of their achievement, and I doubt whether it would be wise, but there is no doubt whatever that a very large proportion, certainly not less than 70 per cent., and some people say as high as 80 per cent., of the timber which is being used in this country to-day is being provided by the woodlands of this country.
That leads us to consider what there will be left. Naturally, we can make no possible estimation except of the young plantations which year by year are reaching pit-prop age. We know that the Forestry Commission started the war with nearly 400,000 of such plantations and that we had helped private owners to plant another 126,000. Apart from that, we cannot say in the least what timber there will be left in this country, except of course that we can count on shelter belts and a certain amount of amenity timber and so on which is not likely to be cut or would be of no commercial utility if it was cut. We are face to face with this very difficult situation. We shall have very little mature timber ourselves, and there will be an enormous demand for it when the huge building and reconstruction programmes are carried out in the years immediately after the war. Where are we to look for the timber? We cannot tell what will be available in Europe. For instance, one hears alarming reports about the treatment of the forests in the occupied countries by the Germans. We know that although there are big resources of timber in Russia, they are becoming year by year less and less accessible. The bulk of them are in Siberia, where the only means of transport are the rivers which run Northwards into the Arctic seas. We also know that Russia will have probably an even bigger programme of rebuilding and reconstruction than we have ourselves. I do not know, and I should hesitate to
hazard

a guess, whether Russia will be able to send us much timber. Sweden we know to be exporting up to the full of her normal fellings, and if she is true to her tradition, she will never allow her fellings and exports to exceed what we foresters call her annual increment. So we are not likely to get greatly increased supplies from Sweden.
We may, I think, be very hard put to it for timber for a good many years after the war. At all events, we have an irresistible case for saying that we must not run the risk of this happening again. We must provide, and provide as quickly as possible, for at least a substantial part of our own requirements for timber. The experience of the last 20 years suggests that the use of other materials like concrete will not in the long run reduce the requirements of wood. Probably the same thing could be said of plastics. At all events, that is a speculation which it would waste the time of the Committee to go into now. All we are certain of is that large volumes of timber will be wanted both for peaceful commercial purposes and for war, if war comes again. Therefore, we are confident that we are right in recommending that there should be provision as rapidly as possible for the future. Having regard to the small quantity or relatively small quantity of mature timber or timber coming into maturity in this country, we suggest that in the interests of the country the system of felling licences which prevails now in war-time should be continued, so that the forest authority should keep some control of the use of timber and prevent the premature use of such small supplies as the country possesses. The Commission was not unanimous on that point, one of our members rejecting the proposal. The Commission think that that is desirable not only in the national interest but in the interest of the timber trade. Nothing could be worse for the trade than in their efforts to maintain an economic existence after the war—they have been very busy during the war—there should be a cutthroat competition for the small and dwindling supplies of timber. It would be better in their interests as well as the country's that that should be controlled.
The main question is that of replanting the land which has been felled over and the additional planting of other areas. We calculate that if we planted up a total of 5,000,000 acres, it would, when


it reached maturity, yield about one-third of the current requirements of timber of the country. That is as near an estimate as we can give, and we recommend to the Government and the Committee that we should adopt a programme of that figure and that we should start as rapidly and on as large a scale as is possible. We think that the largest scale on which sound practical planting could take place would be to cover 1,100,000 acres in the first 10 years after the war. That is what we recommend. We think that of the 3,000,000 acres on the maps, some of which have already passed into the Forestry Commission's hands, we ought not to count on more than 2,000,000 acres as being available for commercial purposes. There is a great deal of shelter-belt timber, and there are a great many little woods in which there are few trees, with which little can be done. There are large areas of the country where the woodlands have been broken up by the building of houses. For instance, in Surrey and parts of Hampshire there are thousands of small houses standing in an acre or half-an-acre of woodland. We cannot count on these for much commercial contribution to the needs of the country.
Therefore, as a rough estimate—and I do not think we are far wrong—we think we can get 2,000,000 acres from the privately-owned woodlands. How are we to obtain it? The bodies principally concerned, the Royal English and the Royal Scottish Forestry Societies and the Central Landowners' Association, speaking for their members, all recognise that the future ownership of woodlands should carry with it the responsibility for maintaining a reasonably high standard of production. The country will not tolerate, nor will it be asked to tolerate, complete neglect of the woodlands any more than it would of agricultural land. Various suggestions have been made for carrying that out, but the Forestry Commission, in attempting to meet the point, have suggested what we call a dedication under which we should give the owners of woodlands the opportunity and encouragement to dedicate their woods primarily to the production of timber and they should undertake certain obligations to submit plans, to obtain approval for their planting plans, to obtain and maintain skilled supervision, and to keep simple and adequate accounts. If they

do that and are willing to have their woodlands under this dedication scheme, we suggest that every possible encouragement and help should be given not only by advice, but, we hope, by relief of some of the tax burdens upon woods, and also by a subsidy of a proportion of their net cost in establishing woodlands, which, after all, are being established as an insurance for the State.
It is a novel scheme, and there has naturally been some doubt as to how it should be applied. It will be found in the Report that there will be consultations with the bodies principally concerned on the details. Invitations have already been sent and acceptances received from the Landowners' Association, both the Forestry Societies, the landholders organisation in Scotland and the Land Union for an initial conference, which is to be followed by the setting-up of committees and frequent meetings and discussions on details so as to ensure as far as possible that the work we do is not hurtful to the interests concerned. Another doubt has been expressed about the small woodlands. We say in our Report that we cannot undertake to bring very small woodlands under the dedication scheme, where they are isolated, but where the owner has been willing to bring his woodlands under a dedication scheme, it will include small and large alike. Where an arrangement is made that woods should not be dedicated but should be taken over either on leasehold arrangements or by compulsory purchase by the State and managed by the State, and it is possible to tack on small woodlands and manage them from a large established centre, they will not be ruled out. One would hope that in the long run all the woodlands of the country, except shelter belts, amenity woods and so on, will be properly managed either by the State or by the owners under this dedication scheme.
We already have adequate powers to make such contracts with owners as are necessary, and, in the case of failure to make reasonable arrangements for cultivation, to acquire land compulsorily. We have not done it so far, and we hope we may not have to do so. Perhaps I should also say that we are recommending that special officers should be appointed to deal with the privately-owned woodlands, so that there should be no con-


fusion between the privately-owned side and the State side, and that owners should not feel that their interests are being put on one side in favour of the State. There will be a separate staff and separate committees of the Commission to deal with the privately-owned woodlands.
Let me turn for a moment to the afforestation of new lands by the State. We say there should be 3,000,000 acres. This is a very small area compared with the 9,000,000 acres recommended by the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion and Afforestation, but we do not think it would be possible to obtain and plant up more than 500,000 acres in the first postwar decade. The agricultural statistics of 1938 show that there are just over 16,000,000 acres of rough grazings in Great Britain—5,500,000 in England and Wales and 10,500,000 in Scotland. The Scottish figures, as do also the Welsh, include mountain tops and deer forests. Our technical officers, who have examined a good deal of land, estimate that just over 4,200,000 acres are suitable for planting; they will carry trees but would hardly carry any sheep. There will be a very small dislocation of the sheep stock. Of that land rather over 2,000,000 acres is in England and Wales and rather over 2,000,000 in Scotland.
Everyone who has been following this question knows that a good deal of fear has been expressed that we may interfere unduly with sheep. I do not think one need be afraid of that. The process will be very gradual. Up to the present, although we have acquired and planted hundreds of thousands of acres of this rough hill grazing, the displacement of sheep has been only 1.3 per acre. It is a very small thing. As to the fears of agriculturists, a good deal of prominence has been given to two cases in which, it is said, the Forestry. Commission have planted land which was needed for food production. There is a biggish case in the Eastern counties. If this land had not been planted with trees when war broke out it would have been put under food production. It was under food production in the last war, but afterwards it went out of cultivation and became completely derelict.

Mr. Price: It went to rabbits.

Sir G. Courthope: Carried nothing but rabbits. The owners of it, having made fruitless attempts to find tenants, at last offered it, in its derelict condition, to the Forestry Commission, and we acquired it with the full approval of the Ministry of Agriculture and planted it up. It is too late to say that that ought to have been producing foodstuffs now. The other case is one with which I was intimately concerned myself. It was land on the South Downs forming the catchment area of the Eastbourne Water Company. It had been cleared of all livestock under an order of the Local Government Board owing to an outbreak of some disease which was attributed, rightly or wrongly, to contamination by livestock. A big area was cleared of stock, and it was offered to us. We have had it eight or 10 years. We were rather pressed to take it over and plant it, because the Eastbourne people rightly thought they would get a better and better regulated supply of water if the land carried trees than if it were left bare. A good deal was planted with a view to establishing beech woods.
Beech starts very slowly, and I had the task, in conjunction with Lord de la Warr, two or three years ago, of deciding how much of our young plantations, might be handed back to agrictlIture for the production of corn. I knew perfectly well that it was good corn land, that it would carry two to three crops, but that it could not be cultivated permanently without livestock or organic manures, which were barred by the health authorities. There were 600 acres altogether, of which over 300 were actually planted. I decided that all the plantations which were small enough to be ploughed up without involving the process of grubbing should be handed over, to be handed back to us after the war for replanting. It gave a considerable quantity of additional corn land, and would not delay for more than a few years, if at all, the final production of timber, which in any case would take a century to produce. Now the agricultural people are saying that this land is growing such beautiful corn that we ought never to have had it. I thought I was at liberty to take up the time of the Committee for a few minutes in order to tell them the facts. We are only too anxious to secure that where there is any conflict between the interests of sheep and the interests of trees there should be opportuni-


ties for full consultation and agreement. We are willing, if a suitable body can be decided upon, that where there is a dispute it should be decided for us independently.
So far as I know, no decision has yet been taken by the Government as to the scale upon which we shall be allowed to start. We should like to start on what I will call our desirable programme of the whole 5,000,000 acres in 50 years with 1,100,000 acres in the first decade. The total cost of that would be just over £41,000,000, and that includes the cost of maintaining our existing plantations, our research departments, our education facilities and all the other things upon which we are spending money to-day. We also submit a smaller scheme but I should very much hope that a study of the situation will lead the Government and Parliament to decide that we must carry out our planting programme on the largest possible scale and as quickly as possible. We have clone a great deal by way of preparation. We have increased our nursery area from 1,000 acres to 1,500, and at the moment we have in those nurseries 230,000,000 seedlings and 76,000,000 transplants. We have collected and purchased all the seed we can of all the suitable varieties in the world. Some of the sources from which we used to get our seed are no longer available, but we have done pretty well as regards making provision for the future. But that is not all the preparation required. If there is to be a big programme, we shall want many roads and bridges too, and we shall have to do engineering work, or there will be delay. We also want to examine and acquire a considerable deal more land. It is no use thinking you can buy the land one day and plant it the next. For all these reasons and many others, it is very necessary that authority to make a start on some scale—and I hope a big scale—should be given without delay.
A number of suggestions have been made that there should be some change in the method of administration. We do not see any reason to change the method of administration. We are convinced by our experience and by what has happened in other countries that there are five essentials for success. The first is that the Government of the day should realise how serious and important is the question. The second is that there should be continuity of policy, including finance. The third, that there should be an ad hoc authority.

We should not go back to the days before 1919 when the duties of planting were tacked on to the Board of Agriculture or the Development Commission who, in a couple of generations, spent £6,7oo. Fourth, we should have a unified forest service and suitable provision for research, education and information, and that we have at present. We are firmly convinced that there must be a single authority, and to my pleasure and rather to my surprise, the Royal Scottish Forestry Society advocate a single authority, provided that there is, as there is to-day and will continue to be, more devolution of executive and administrative powers. I had another note on something I wanted to say, but I have lost it. In conclusion, I would like to commend to the Committee the recommendations which the Forestry Commission have made. I should also like to thank the Committee for the patience with which they have listened to my rather rambling remarks, and I would urge upon the Government, and particularly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how important it is that even if they cannot give a decision as to the exact scope of our future work, we should be authorised to start on a substantial scale at once.

Mr. David Grenfell: I should like first of all to congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend and former colleague on the very excellent way in which he has made clear the intentions of those who framed this Report. I welcome the Report as a bold and promising statement which has regard to the realities of the situation and which, I believe, will find favour with the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. I would recommend the Committee and all who may read this Debate to read the Report itself. It is an outstanding document. It is instructive and informative to all who are interested in the right use of our land, and it puts the problem of afforestation, agriculture and rural reconstruction in its right setting. This is a small country but a wonderfully rich country. While we would like to be doing everything, yet on a site so small we must have regard to the differences of soil conditions, elevation and climatic conditions. We must cut our coat according to our cloth in these matters, in this country. This Report shows that very much and very close attention has been paid to this problem.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that some years ago, I think it was in 1909, the Liberal Party set up a Commission which gave a very optimistic Report on these matters. I remember that I was taken up with the idea in those days that we ought to be able to grow a larger part of the timber in this country that we required. We proposed to set aside in the Report to which I have referred 9,000,000 acres; but those who know the subject best would agree that a programme on that scale would tend to encroach upon the food-growing possibilities of our country. The claims of food production and of timber production have to be considered in relation with each other, and we have to remember the rapid extension and wider range of our residential areas for amenity and health reasons. We have to study how best to use the 60,000,000 acres or so which we possess within these shores.
I welcome the Report and support it entirely. We should confine our effective forest areas to 5,000,000 acres. We are a long way from 5,000,000 acres to-day, despite the progress which has been so well described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We have far to go. We have been working now for 20 years. I was privileged to serve on the Forestry Commission for 13 years and to enjoy the companionship, advice and instruction of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and of the Chairman of the Commission and other colleagues with whom I spent a very happy and, I believe, a very fruitful time. I saw timber growing is not a matter simply of setting aside or acquiring land in large areas and of planting trees without due regard to selection and to the right kind of planting methods, of research and of intense scientific study. I had not paid any attention to the words "excology" and "mycology" before I went to the Forestry Commission, but there I found a world unknown to me, in connection with the growing of timber. The scientist has a very large part to play in it, and experience needs to be gathered. One of the things already done during the last 20 years has been the collection of experience. Never before in this country have we had the volume of experience that we possess to-day, and never has that experience been brought together so advantageously. We have not only a Commission of informed persons but a

very fine staff, and I would like to add my tribute to those which have been paid to the excellent staff. The staff is first-class. That is not too generous a terms to use in connection with the people who have been employed by the Commission. They have been finding out things and sometimes working empirically, on the basis of their own experience. We have grown timber, good timber and a large yield.
Perhaps the most important fact of all is that this country now knows that it can grow a bigger timber crop per acre than can any country in Europe. That is a great achievement. We have always under-estimated the capacity of our soil and have said "You cannot grow more food in this country." That was urged even by people who lived in the countryside. Even the agricultural people said that there was a limit to what we could grow, but we have gone far beyond those limits in the last three or four years. In regard to forestry, we have established the fact that we can grow a wide range of soft woods and an equally wide range of hard woods if we have the finance and the organisation. If we could justify setting aside our most suitable land for the purpose, we could grow a wider range of timber than any country in Europe. There are the soil, the organisation and now the experience. It now rests with the people and the Government of this country to give us an effective send-off in regard to the policy and the programme outlined in the Report.
I would like the Committee and the country to believe and to be optimistic that we can do all that is contained in the Report. It is a desirable and an attainable programme, which meets the situation. Whittling down at this stage, however, might encourage whittling down in other directions, and I hope that we shall not again have the experience that the Forestry Commission had earlier. The Commission has acquired a forest area of well over 1,000,000 acres and has planted roughly some 400,000 acres. It has gathered together a fine staff. In this land now there are no fewer than 243 forest units. I know some of the main projects the Commission have in view. They propose having some very large forests. Some of them must be the most economical forests we have in this country, particularly in the North, on the


Scottish Border of Northumberland and Cumberland, in Roxburghshire and, I believe, Dumfriesshire. In those four counties there is a project by which we shall have a forest of no less than 100 square miles. It is a most inspiring programme.
There should be large forests, where the land is suitable and available, but we should not confine our operations to large forests. There are many pockets of suitable and plantable land which can be acquired at a reasonable price and which are of very good quality. They would be far more beneficial to the immediate localities than the acquisition of tens of thousands of acres which might interfere with other methods of cultivation, and with agriculture. I would like to see some limit of size and number mentioned in the Commission's Report. I believe the present limit is about 240 units, but I should like to see the figure something like 2,000 units. There ought to be some tentative figure in the mind of the Commission, including large units as well as small ones, especially in the neighbourhood of industrial areas, where there should be small forests of 200 or 300 acres in size. That would be well worth while from the amenity aspect. There are many such places which can produce timber just as good as in the larger areas. Such a programme could be fulfilled without cutting down by one pound the quantity of food produced in this country. I would like to see a plan for rural development and reconstruction consisting partly of forestry operation, partly of the cultivation of smallholdings, and partly of rural industry. By that kind of combination, in the building up of a rural revival and bringing back men, women and children into the countryside communities, employing them largely on this basic matter of afforestation, I believe we could get all the timber we require.
It was pointed out by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was the Commission's intention to be able to supply one-third of our current demand for as far ahead as they could see and to have it always available in our forests. There is another side to that matter, which represents the large insurance policy which accompanies that intention. If we have one-third of our current demand always available to be supplied from our own forests, we could, in an emergency,

if we had to go to war again, meet the whole of the demand for the shorter period, say for four or five years consecutively. There is an insurance value in that provision. I would urge upon those who advocate afforestation and who believe in the possibility of this programme, that much has to be done to safeguard particularly the hillside sheep farmer, who is among the best type of our people. He lives a good, industrial, moral, decent, self-respecting, God-fearing life. I do not think we should, encroach upon the hillside sheep farmers. I am a believer in Professor Stapledon and in the possibilities of grass cultivation in those wild places. If we can grow trees, why can we not grow good grass? It is simply a matter of improving the quality of grass cultivation, and that would retain the sheep farmers where they are, because they would be able to feed more sheep. All those possibilities can easily be based upon this splendid Report.
I would now say a word about administration. I do not think there is anything wrong with the Forestry Commission. I am not on it now, but I stayed with it long enough the see that it works. It has done a marvellous job. If I may mention any shortcomings during the last 20 years, and they are not many, they are not attributable to the Forestry Commission but to this House, which has attached far more importance to spurious ideas of economy, such as the Geddes axe and such economy ideas, than it should have done. If it had not been for such economies, the Commission would have been able to achieve its full planting programme. I would say, by way of warning to this Committee, that we would by this time have had 100,000 more acres of pit wood if the Commission's programme had not been interfered with from time to time, and it would have been of inestimable advantage to this country. I remember that in 1931 we destroyed 50,000,000 seedlings which should have been put into the ground. There was no real economy in doing so, and I hope that that kind of thing will not be allowed to happen again. There is contact between the Commission and Parliament.
The Forestry Commission have answered Questions at the average rate of one per week in this House during the whole of their existence. There is no reason why those Questions should not


be answered in greater number, if information were desired by hon. Members. The Forestry Commission do not work in the dark but in public and under direct supervision. I want to see the Commission sustained with the resources they require to do their great task. I belong to a small country, where we have more hilly ground even than in Scotland, in comparison with our size, and lots of our people live on small sheep holdings on the hillsides. These people have frequently expressed their fears and sometimes their grievances at the encroachment of the Forestry Commission. It is said that they have acquired land that would be more profitably employed for sheep farming. I do not want that to happen. I do not want the sheep population of this country to decline, and I do not believe it need decline if we have due regard and do the things which are suggested.
But there is a disadvantage which we suffer from as compared, say, with Scotland, and I envy Scotland—everybody does—but I do not complain of Scotland's care in looking after herself and her success in that matter. I do not know why there should not be a Regional Commissioner for Wales. There has been an Assistant Commissioner for Scotland, and I would like here to say a word in tribute to Sir John Sutherland in this Committee, a great man who has served the Commission well, who has lately retired, a very able man, a wise man, a good forester, who has the patience to watch little trees growing and does not take his axe too readily to cut them down, a man of whom Scotland should be proud. Sir John was Commissioner there. I do not see why we should not have a Commissioner's office in Wales, with a Commissioner in charge. It is true that Scotland and England have Assistant Commissioners. I do not know whether we should jib at the word. There is the chairman of the Commissioners, the general Commissioners, of whom there are eight or nine, some of them colleagues of ours. I think there are four Members of this House—[Interruption]—all Englishmen, on the Commission, and two Members of the House of Lords, one of them a Scot. There are eight or nine Commissioners, and there are two Assistant Commissioners, one for Eng

land and Wales and one for Scotland. I would like to add a third and see a Welsh Commissioner.
I would like to make quite certain that the legitimate fears and apprehensions of farmers are met. After all, agriculture is the main industry, and when we have done all we propose to do in the matter of affortestation we shall only be dealing with less than 10 per cent. of the area of the country. There is the vast industry of agriculture which will have to be safeguarded. I think we can grow one-third of our timber requirements, I believe we can provide, for a short emergency of three or four years, all the timber which this nation requires. I believe we have the machinery to do it; all that is required is time. You cannot grow a tree in five years, but they do begin to play a useful part in the economy of this country from the age of 20 years onwards. Having cut down in the countryside so freely as we have done in this war to our advantage, I hope we shall not see vast tracts of unplanted land for years. I express my gratification at the presentation of this Report and express my keen regard for those who brought it forward and my desire that it shall be implemented with the uniform concurrence of Members of the Committee.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I begin by also paying my tribute to the authors of this Report for its detailed information and for the very concise, readable way in which it has been put forward? In addition, may I also pay my tribute to the great work which has been done by its Chairman, Sir Roy Robinson, for 20 years, I think, now, and for the wonderful way in which he carried on in spite of the amazing difficulties which have been put in his way, especially on two occasions by this House and the Government of the day? It is rather extraordinary how we have neglected in the past our great national assets. A week or so ago we were discussing coal. What an amazing asset that has been. Nevertheless somehow or other we have neglected it in the past.
The most valuable asset that this country has had for centuries in addition to food was its timber. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) referring to the fact that now it is recognised that this is the finest timber-growing country there is. A little


knowledge of the past ought to have informed us about that. No wonder we used to sing about:
Hearts of oak are our ships,
Hearts of oak are our men.
We relied so much through the past centuries on the excellence of our timber-growing capacity, but nothing was done until about 50 years ago, until the State began to make a few inquiries and at last acquired a few sparse hill tops, as the Report says, here and there, and began to consider what they might do, until the wonderful Report of 1909, to which practically no attention was paid. Nothing was done until the war of 1914–18. Suddenly the importance of timber in this country was realised, and that sub-committee was set up in 1916 to whose Report very rightly this Commission again calls attention, which was issued in 1919. May I also pay a further tribute to a late Member of this House, Sir Francis Dyke Acland? I doubt if the country recognises the deep debt it owes to that late Member, with regard to both agriculture and forestry. No wonder the Commission begins its Report by referring to that excellent Report of 1916–19.
Then what happens? The Forestry Act is passed. It is then argued that you have to have a national policy, that you have to have a long-term policy, that certain matters are only to be done by setting up a State authority, that that State authority must have power to acquire land and that money must be put at its disposal, linking all this up with a longterm policy. Then, of course, there should be no cutting down of the power and money given to it. Within three years down comes that instrument which we then knew by the name of the Geddes axe, and scarcely had the Commission started its work than the axe fell. What did that famous Committee presided over by one of the Geddes family suggest? What the Commons had decided in 1919, having just come through the great difficulties of the war—these difficulties had been forgotten by 1922 and the only thing that mattered was money, and, therefore, the Committee suggested, "Let us abolish this." Fortunately the Cabinet did not abolish the Commission, but they cut down its finances.
So we went on until 1931, when again another Committee, the May Committee, came forward, and again the Govern-

ment of the day cut down the finances of the Forestry Commission. Agriculture and forestry have been the Cinderellas on the Government side under successive Governments through successive generations. What of this Committee? It is rather sparsely populated now. Only on two occasions have they seen fit to discuss the Estimates of the Commission, and that was over a decade ago, in 1927 and 1930. During the whole of that period about Sao Questions have been put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I most sincerely congratulate on his speech and on the way he has carried on that office throughout, an average, as the hon. Member for Gower said, of one a week, 40 a year. That is the interest we have taken in a matter which was of national importance. Is it to be wondered at that the first matter to which our attention is called in the Report is that 4 per cent. only of this national asset is produced in this country and that 96 per cent. of our wood has to be imported? Is it to be wondered, therefore, that all that the Commission acquired for planting was 714,000 acres of plantable land, and that all they planted was 434,000 acres?
Both the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gower have emphasised the point that has been made in the Report that it has not been necessary to use any compulsory powers. I do not think that that is a tribute. It may be a tribute to landowners who are willing to part, but I am not sure it is a tribute to the energy of the Commission that they have never yet had occasion to use their compulsory powers. The history of the woodlands of this country, as is reported in the Acland Report, is one of neglect, remissness, prodigality and incapacity in looking after woodlands except in a few very well recognised cases, to which the highest tribute is paid. So what was said, again by the Acland Report, following immediately after the last war?
Dependence on imported timber has proved a serious handicap in the conduct of the war.
We woke up to that in the middle of this war:
The United Kingdom cannot run the risk of future wars without safeguarding its supplies of timber as every other Power that counts has already done.
That was the Report in 1918, and a Committee solemnly sits to consider only


finance in 1921 and 1922, and says: "No, abolish the Commission and stop planting." How quickly we forget our lessons. The Acland Report says, at the end of the quotation given in the Commission's Report:
The above proposals are framed in the interest of national safety, which requires that more timber should be grown in the British Isles.
That was the recommendation, and all that we have been able to do is to plant some 400,000 acres and to enable owners, with Government assistance, to plant another 126,000 acres. That is all we were able to do between the two wars. Two things have called attention to the fact that this is a national matter. I was surprised when taking up this Report to find that what the Commission recommend in the first place is that we should continue a sort of mixture of State control and private ownership. What surprised me above everything is that that Report was signed by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price).
What is the position with regard to timber? We have seen from the Reports that it is necessary to spend a great deal of money in acquiring land for planting; it is necessary to spend a good deal of money in planning; it is necessary to spend a good deal in research; it is necessary to spend a good deal in continuous care. The Commission recognise, as I should have thought everybody would have recognised to-day, that the private owner can no longer afford it. Thanks to taxation, Death Duties and increased wages, the landlord is quite incapable of carrying out the improvements which are necessary in order to bring land back into proper cultivation. That is true of agriculture, of the buildings, of the drainage, of the new houses, and of all the amenities that are required. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that attached to the forestry work there would be the need for making new roads, new bridges and a tremendous amount of drainage. The Commission recognise this and say, "What shall we do? We will make a grant of 25 per cent. to the private owner. Even that will not be enough, so we suggest that he should also be lent 75 per cent. of the money required at a low rate of interest to carry out work which we recognise is a national duty and should

be carried out by the State." Having done this, they then say, "If there is any additional wealth as a result, it will belong to the private owner, and not to the State." They say, "We must help the private owner, guide him, spend money on him, and if these woodlands then became a national asset, they will all be the property of the private owner."
When are we going to face up to realities? This is a question of national safety. We were perilously near disaster in the last war. Thereupon a Commission was called for, and the Commission reported. The moment the danger is over we go back to the old chaotic methods. Now we have this war. We have heard a great deal about the output of coal. What is the position regarding pit props in this country at present? If we are in a safe position the thanks of the country are due to Sir Roy Robinson and the work he has done, and no thanks are due to the Geddes axe and the Royal Commissions and the Governments that supported them. Let us, for the sake of national safety, have a national and long-term policy. Very rightly, the Commission say that they visualise a policy of 50 years. Let us decide the amount of money available for carrying out that policy, and let it remain rigid, and not be subject to the fluctuations in financial policy of the parties sitting on that Bench. If the country wants a long-term policy with regard to agriculture, and with regard to forestry, it can have it only by nationalisation of the land. No private owner can afford to do what is necessary. Only yesterday I saw a letter in "The Times" from Lord Mildmay of Flete, putting up, of course, a plea for private ownership. He said that the only owners who could afford to do the necessary things to bring the land back into cultivation are those who draw their money from outside the rental resources of the land. Why should you have proper treatment from the land given only by those who have made their money in some form of industry outside, and who then come forward and erect new buildings, make drains and roads, and so on, which will be necessary for agriculture, and for housing?
The Commission at long last recommend that they should have Ministerial representation in this House. I have already paid my tribute to the right hon.


and gallant Gentleman for what he has done on their behalf, and for the way he has informed the House from time to time, but he has been quite incapable of guiding the policy of the Government. I wonder what the story might have been if there had been a Minister for Forestry in the Cabinet in 1922 and 1931. It is essential that there should be someone who will take upon himself the responsibility for a policy, and be answerable to the House from that Bench. Where I quarrel with the Commission is that they suggest that the Minister should be that maid-of-all-work, the Lord President of the Council. What is that going to lead to? My hon. Friend the Member for Gower has already referred to disputes arising in our country over the use of land when the Forestry Commission have taken up land which would otherwise be growing crops, or at any rate providing pasture for sheep. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, there are lands which can be used for forestry which a few years ago were regarded as derelict. It is still more true of agricultural land. Thanks to the tremendous advances made under the guidance of Sir George Stapledon, and thanks also to the new machinery, which can tear up this land, and the new scientific methods used, land which we regarded as derelict is now capable of growing crops. [An HON. MEMBER: "And thanks to the Minister of Agriculture and the subsidies."] The hon. Member has called attention to the Minister of Agriculture. I quite agree with him. But the Commission emphasised that we are still awaiting a long-term policy in agriculture. I agree that that is probably not the fault of the Minister, but the fault of his colleagues.
I cannot see a long-term policy in agriculture or in forestry being settled until we have settled the question of the ownership of land. There are bound to be squabbles between agricultural men and forestry men over the question of whether the land is to be used for the growing of food, to be laid down for permanent pasture or for ley, or to be taken away from agriculture permanently and put under forestry. The right hon. and gallant Gentlemen has said that whenever they purchase land they consult the Ministry of Agriculture. Who is going to settle these disputes? The time has come when we

should reorganise the Cabinet and the position of the Members. The Minister of Agriculture is not only also the President of the Board of Agriculture but is responsible for fishing as well. What on earth has deep-sea fishing to do with the productive capacity of the soil? Nothing whatever.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): And nothing whatever to do with this Debate.

Mr. Davies: I am obliged to you, Mr. Williams, for that suggestion. But what I want to see is anything affecting the total productive capacity of the land, anything to do with rural economy, corning under one Minister. I want to see that Minister responsible for agriculture, for forestry, for horticulture, and divorced from anything which is unconnected with land cultivation. That is why I said that fishing should be taken away from him. First, there would be the agricultural side and all the industries ancillary to that, and the amenities which would attract people back to the land. Then, the Minister would have, as another Department, horticulture, and, as yet another Department, forestry. He would have attached to that Department, and under his control, not merely the planting and research and acquisition of the land and the decision upon what land should be used for agriculture and what for forestry, but the responsibility for lands ancillary for smallholdings, cottages, and the attractions which are just as necessary for rural people as for people living in the industrial areas. But there ought to be attached also the ancillary matters which go with forestry; the sawmills, the pulping plants, and, of course, the technical colleges which will provide the new scientific men. That is the set-up we need at present, not this hotch-potch of putting forestry under the Lord President of the Council. That sort of thing only leads to further trouble. If we are going to have a new forestry policy, let us begin properly.
There will then be a central authority here in London. I agree with that. In all businesses you first concentrate your authority into one centre, and then you devolve that authority, and trust the men on the spot. There will be necessary, to assist the Minister, various advisory committees in different parts of the country.


Scotland will certainly demand one, if not two. I should imagine that there are two different areas in Scotland—above the Grampians, and below the Grampians. We shall certainly need one in Wales. We have our own peculiar problems, which are too often neglected by the Government and by this House, with regard to not merely forestry, but everything else. Probably three or four local committees will be needed for England that is a matter for the English Members to suggest. I should prefer that these bodies should not be nominated, but should be elected by the local authorities, which are the best bodies to advise the Minister. If that is done I can look forward again to seeing my bare and barren hills, and, what is worse, those which are clothed to-day in bracken and bramble, becoming a fruitful land, either in crops or in permanent pasture or with trees, which will help to make this country safe in its hour of need.

Mr. Wedderburn: The Report of the Forestry Commissioners recommends that 4,650,000 acres should be planted in a period of 50 years, the greater part of it by the State but something like one-fifth by private owners, with the aid of public funds. One million, one hundred thousand acres are to be planted in the first decade, 1,500,000 in the second and 850,000, 700,000 and 500,000 in the third, fourth and fifth decades. The cost for the first decade is estimated at £47,000,000, and the cost of subsequent periods is not estimated. We should expect the returns in the first decade to be extremely small because they must principally be derived from the early thinnings of the 400,000 acres which have already been planned or acquired before the war. It is put in the Report at £5.8 millions. It is extremely difficult to estimate the returns which may be expected from State expenditure on afforestation because we cannot foresee what will be the world price of timber or what new values timber may have acquired in the next 50 or 100 years. The Select Committee on Estimates for 1929 and 1937, whose reports are both quoted in this Report, accept the calculation that on the existing basis of costs and prices the returns should be between three and three and-a-half per cent., but the Select Committee took the view that afforestation would probably prove to be

more remunerative in future owing to the rapid depletion of the world's resources and the steadily growing demand for timber. In Northern Europe and North America forests are not being replaced, except in Scandinavia; the demand in industry for wood of all kinds is rapidly increasing and we must expect that newly industrialised countries such as China, who would have little or no timber of their own, will in the not very distant future, enter into competition for a diminishing supply.
It is suggested in paragraph 519 of this Report that that part of our current expenditure on forestry which could properly be regarded as capital expenditure ought to be financed out of borrowings. That is a good proposal. It is one which I ventured to make myself to the Government in 1933 and again in 1934. The Treasury have always preferred to finance expenditure on forestry out of current revenue but I think it would be more equitable and also more convenient that it should be financed by a public loan. The demands for expenditure after the war on the Armed Forces and on social services and on housing will be very great, and if we are to expend, as I hope we shall, a great sum of money on a national investment which will be of the highest value to our grandchildren, we ought to draw a proper distinction between our capital and our income.
Whoever may become responsible in future for the administration of forestry, whether it be an independent authority or some Minister of the Crown, ought to make plans a long way ahead. Before any decision on policy is taken and approved by Parliament, we ought to know how much money it is proposed to spend and how many acres it is proposed to plant over a very long period of time. Subsequent Parliaments, although they can never be bound by the acts of their predecessors, should bear in mind that there is nothing more damaging and wasteful to the public interest in such a lengthy operation as forestry as continual changes in policy and unexpected variations in the annual sums of money which are voted for this purpose. I have very little doubt that it is the fear of such changes and the knowledge of their detrimental results which have always impelled the Forestry Commissioners to be exceedingly cautious and, in my view, even timid in their estimates of what could be done.


In 1929 Mr. J. H. Thomas, who was then appointed Minister of Employment in the new Government, went to the Forestry Commissioners and told them they could have as much money as they liked to spend on the largest programme they could conceive for the next 10 years. But the Forestry Commission were very prudent. They replied that they could not spend more than £1,000,000 a year or plant more than 40,000 acres a year; it would not be physically possible to do this efficiently without wasting public money. The ideas of the Commission seem now to have rather expanded since they now recommend the planting of 1,100,000 acres and the expenditure of £47,000,000 in the first decade. It is a good fault on the part of any official body that they should be cautious and conservative in their estimates, and that they should not raise extravagant hopes, but I must confess that I am not very well satisfied with that part of the Report headed "Area Statement" on pages 34 to 37. If the Committee will look at paragraph 150, on page 34, which has been alluded to by my right hon. and gallant Friend, they will see the following:
The and in which we are interested for future timber supply are the woodlands and the rough grazings.
There fellows a table showing the rough grazings in England and Wales and in Scotland—5.61 million acres for England and Wales and 10.46 million acres for Scotland. In the preceding paragraph (149) the Commission say that—
The arable, permanent grass, rough grazings … include the main bulk of rural Britain but apparently not all, because the remainder amounting to 7.7 million acres, seems more than ample to account for land devoted to urban and other uses.
The Commissioners must forgive me for saying that I think this rather a careless statement to be made by a public body presenting a Report to Parliament. This 7.7 million acres, by which the Commissioners seem to be slightly bewildered, includes the whole of the deer forests in Scotland. Some of the properties in the Highlands which the Commission have acquired and successfully planted have been deer forest and the nature of the land is similar to the other mountain and heath land in Scotland which is included in this figure of rough grazings. There are 2,500,000 acres of deer forest, and the correct figure which I have verified from our latest agricultural returns should be

13.1 million and not 10.46 million acres. I would ask the Committee to look at this in conjunction with paragraph 164, in page 37, where it is stated that after inquiry by the Commission's technical officers it is computed that the total afforest-able area is 4.2 million acres, of which one-half is in England and Wales and the other half in Scotland. That means about 2,000,000 acres in each. If you compare that with the table on page 34, the result you will get is that in England 2,000,000 acres is 37 per cent. of the total figure of 5.61, while in Scotland 2,000,000 acres is only 15 per cent. of a total figure of 13.1 million acres—r5 per cent. plantable, 85 per cent. unplantable. I am willing to believe that there may be a rather higher proportion of unplantable ground in Scotland but I would very much like to know on what basis this calculation was made and what terms of reference were given to the Commission's technical officers.
My right hon. and gallant Friend in his opening speech alluded to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1909, which is mentioned in paragraph 24 of the Report. As he said, this Royal Commission recommended that 9,000,000 acres should be planted in the United Kingdom. But it is not mentioned here that of these 9,000,000 acres no less than 6,000,000 acres were in Scotland. Of the total amount of 9,000,000 half a million were in Ireland, 2½ million in England and Wales and no less than 6,000,000 in Scotland, according to the recommendations of this Royal Commission 1909. It has now come down from the estimate of 6,000,000 in 1909 to 2,000,000 acres
in the Report which we have now. I have read the Report of the Royal Commission of 1909 and I think that it rather over-estimated the amount of plantable land. I do not think they made sufficient allowance for land unplantable owing to unfavourable exposure, peat, bog and other causes. But when 1 am told that of the total amount in Scotland, 13.1 million acres, only 15 per cent. is plantable and 85 per cent. unplantable, that is not a figure that I am prepared to accept unless I can have a very much more detailed survey than we are given here. It would be no use for me to give an estimate because it would only be an individual guess of no practical value, but I would ask the Government, before they decide upon the distribution of


forests in this country, to demand a very much more careful and detailed survey and statement of the plantable area than that contained in this Report.
In determining our policy there are a great many things—town and country planning, the development of transport, and other things which will have to be considered but which cannot be discussed in this Debate, but there is one subject upon which I would like to say a word or two because it is of particular concern to a great many of my hon. Friends who represent Highland constituencies. I mean the relationship between forestry and hill sheep. If all the land in Scotland were put to its best use, you would certainly not abolish the hill-sheep farming industry. There is a great deal of ground which can never be planted but which can be used for grazing, but you would very materially reduce the population of sheep, because it very often happens that the most suitable ground for planting coincides with the best hill grazing. I want to make my own view on this matter perfectly plain. I can well understand the desire of my hon. Friends, who have many hundreds of thousands of sheep in their constituencies, that there should not be a too abrupt and drastic disturbance of the settled agricultural habits of the people, but my view is that wherever land can be planted preference ought to be given to timber over sheep because timber is of higher value to the country by whatever standard you measure it. If you take the money value, the annual increment from timber is greater than the annual production of mutton and wool as a rule on any land the rent of which is assessed at 5s. an acre or less, which would include most of our rough grazing in Scotland. If you take weight and bulk, which is the most important thing of all when you are seeking to save shipping space in war-time, there is no comparison at all. The annual increment from timber on this class of land is something like one and a half tons per acre, whereas the annual production of mutton and wool is seldom more than 10 or 15 lbs. If you take employment, which is a very great concern to us in deciding on our Highland policy in Scotland, afforestation there will give direct employment, on the woods themselves and on forest industry, to more than ten times the

number now employed in the hill sheep farming industry, even on the best lands.
As we know, Highland landlords 100 years ago, and continuously since, were execrated by a great number of people because they converted their estates into sheep farms, and until a lifetime ago sheep farming in the Highlands was regarded as a detestable novelty which depopulated the country. Now that it is proposed to introduce this new industry, which would very largely undo the work of the Highland clearances and would repopulate the Highlands, the Forestry Commission comes in for nearly as much abuse and execration as the Highland landlords did when they put their ground to sheep 100 years ago. Of course, we can well understand that public opinion is always conservative in these matters. People naturally do not like to see well-stocked and well-managed sheep farms denuded of their sheep and turned over to timber. As I have said, my view is that in every case where there is suitable land priority should be given to timber, because on every count it is of greater value to the nation both in time of peace and war and from the point of view of production of wealth, of security in war, and of the employment of our people in the Highlands.
There is one other aspect of this Report to which I would like to make a reference, namely, that part which deals with private woodlands. I do not take the same view as the Commission about small woods. In paragraphs 294–295, on page 53, they recommend that assistance should not be given to owners of small woodlands. It is perfectly true that sylviculture requires a good deal of knowledge and skill but the successful growing of woods does not need such a superlative degree of education that it cannot be quite well performed by people who are not specialists. I think that if a smallholder is willing to plant five or ten acres of ground on his holding with a guarantee that it will be properly managed, he is just as much entitled to the assistance of the State as the great landowner who employs 15 or 20 foresters. I think in the long run that it would save the State a lot of money if they encouraged small planting. It does not mean a lot of inspection, only an inspection once a year for the first two or three years to make sure that the owner has not allowed it to get over-run with rabbits and has replaced young trees which have died.
As to the method by which assistance should be given, I do not find myself in agreement with the Commission's recommendations on page 52, paragraphs 285–287. I think that the most useful and helpful kind of assistance would be the provision of loans at a low rate of interest, a suggestion which is turned down in paragraph 287. The current rate of interest at which it has been possible to raise money in the past for planting, from the Lands Improvement Company or the Agricultural Credit Society, has usually been about five per cent. or very little less. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he wants to continue our present policy of cheap money after the war, and if that is so it ought to be possible to issue loans for approved purposes of this kind at no more than 3 per cent.
Suppose you now spend £1,000 on the planting of a wood. How much will you owe at the end of that wood's lifetime in 65 to 7o years? I assume that the cost of maintaining the wood after planting will be offset by the proceeds of the thinnings. I am only calculating the initial cost now and the ultimate value in 70 years. If your £1,000 is borrowed at 3 per cent., then in 65 or 70years your debt at compound interest will amount to £8,000 which you will owe at the end of that time. If the money is borrowed at 4 per cent. the debt after 70 years will amount to about £16,000, and if at 5 per cent. it will amount to more than £30,000 so that the advantage in borrowing at 3 per cent. as against 5 per cent. is not an advantage in the ratio of five to three, but is an advantage in the ratio of four to one.
In my view a guaranteed loan at a low rate of interest would be the most useful and helpful method of giving assistance. One of the reasons why small owners are reluctant to plant is because of the taxation on woodlands. They have to get some current revenue to pay for the taxation. If the State desires an owner to plant, and if it is right in the public interest in order to conserve timber, to prohibit him from selling the wood at a time when he thinks he can get most out of it, I think there is then a good case for exempting dedicated woodlands from direct taxation. You are allowed to pay taxes under Schedule "D" instead of Schedule "B" when running woodlands on a commercial basis, which is possible for the bigger owner with

several thousand acres but is not possible for the small owner with from five to 30 acres. I would be in favour of exempting woods altogether from direct taxation, both Income Tax and Death Duties. If it were thought politically or socially undesirable that they should be so exempt, I would still relieve them from Income Tax and Death Duties and substitute a timber duty, to be paid when the wood is cut, which should form some fixed proportion of the net proceeds.
I do not know what view the Government will take of this Report or what their decision about it will be. No doubt they are debating whether it is a good thing to have an independent authority or whether forestry should be placed under some Minister of the Crown, or whether there should be some compromise between the two. I know they are giving the matter great attention, and I hope that they will give as much attention to the question of how much planting should be done and how much money should be spent upon it. I do not want to have to decide who should manage forestry until I know what kind of programme the Government are proposing. I desire that it should be a large programme, and in Scotland I wish it to be larger than what is suggested here, because it seems to me that the balance between England and Scotland is not properly assessed in this Report. There ought to be a much larger proportion of planting in Scotland. But whatever is decided I hope the Government will give us a programme containing the quantity which ought to be planted and the amount of money which it is proposed to spend upon it, and that this programme will receive plenty of publicity so that this Parliament and succeeding Parliaments may then be invited to adhere to it with the least possible amount of deviation.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I would like to join in congratulating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Court-hope) and his colleagues in the production of a most interesting Report, which to myself and many of us has been quite an education in matters appertaining to forestry. I think the Report has established facts against which some of the Commission's own conclusions tend to run counter—for instance, on private


forestry and private woodlands—and that there are other points of criticism which one might make; but in the main it is heartening to find that the Commission, which has been rather timid in the past, for very obvious reasons relating to the Treasury, is now thinking in bigger terms and is taking a longer view. It is absolutely necessary, if we are to attract the best people to the service of the industry itself, that we shall have a long-term policy guaranteeing them employment, which we have not had in the past. I hope very much that the Treasury will rise to the occasion as the Commission have done and will enable them to carry out their policy largely on the lines suggested in the terms of the Report which has been presented to the Committee.
I should like to make one or two criticisms at this point. I would not make them if they were avoidable, but I feel that I must. I cannot say what the English experience is, but I do not think local authorities in Scotland were sufficiently consulted before this Report was produced. I do not think that the farmers and others interested were consulted properly at all, even to the extent of ordinary courtesy on a matter which affects their livelihood so intimately. I am afraid that that criticism will come from different sides of the House and from Members with different views from my own. There is, perhaps, another criticism in the fact that the Report and the Debate itself have been rushed. I am not complaining for my own sake. I do not say that a few more days would have equipped me technically or otherwise to speak with authority or to give further information to the Committee which it has not got; but I feel that our local authorities in Scotland would like to have had more time to present their views, and I am sure that chambers of commerce and the farmers unions would have liked time to approach Members and put their views before the Government and Parliament. They have been deprived of that opportunity by the Debate coming on so quickly. It may have been unavoidable, but there it is.
Another point is that we have the Hill Sheep Committee sitting in Scotland, and this Report definitely overlaps the functions of that Committee and certainly anticipates its findings. I think there should have been some sort of consultation and perhaps a little adjustment of the

timing of the Debate with the Report of the Hill Sheep Committee as well as consultation with farmers and local authorities. Beyond these criticisms which, possibly, can be met by various belated adjustments between the Commission and the Secretary of State in Scotland, and the Minister of Agriculture in England, most of us agree that the Report in the main is excellent and, if we can avoid these incursions and unfortunate overlapping and competition with agricultural development and stock breeding, I think it will go a long way towards giving us a first-class forestry policy. I do not think the public have been startled sufficiently in the past on this subject, and it is well to have brought forcibly before the public the fact that we are so dependent upon imports of timber which is so necessary in peace and war for our economic life. To realise that only 4 per cent. of our consumption in war-time and peace-time has been met by home-grown timber is certainly to bring home with something of a shock the need for a long term and also an immediate policy. In war-time one cannot overstress the serious position in which we have landed ourselves by neglecting to have a progressive forestry policy and a policy for the conservation of our existing woodlands.
The Report stresses that we only began to think scientifically about forestry during the last war and that we only made it a special job for a special body in 1919. Its findings emphasise that we have only begun to act, even to propose action, in a big way when the second world war is well towards its ending. In the unfortunate event, which we must foresee and plan for now, of this country having to contemplate being at war again, we shall be in a very difficult position unless we have an intermediate short-term policy as well as a long-term policy covering 50 to 80 years. I am not going to say that the existence of privately owned woodlands has not served the country well in wartime, but all the facts suggest that private forestry has been a failure, and I do not think many of my hon. Friends will agree that it is a sensible or a good thing that we should put a national policy of such urgency, whose recognition is so bluntly forced upon us by war, into the hands of private forestry owners and subsidise what has up to the present proved a wholly unsuccessful proposition. The Report


says that little progress has been made in sylviculture and little expansion has been achieved except by State grant. I agree completely with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that the question relates itself not only to the control but to the ownership of the land itself; and we must base a national forest policy upon the national ownership of the land instead of resorting to subsidising a system or lack of it in private hands which has proved wholly uneconomic and unenterprising and from the national and strategic point of view wholly unsatisfactory and precarious.
There are very heartening things in the Report on which we can afford to be optimistic. It states that our climate and conditions are highly suitable for both rapid-growing and long-term policy for hard and soft woods. They have now the experience of these 20 years or more; and the training and the results from research and all these things are to hand which were not to hand in 1919. So, it may be that, having come through, by happy chances and a good deal of additional hard work, the worst of the last war and this without being completely sunk on this question of the provision of timber, that, after all, this is the best time to set out with a long-term and large-scale forestry policy with all the equipment and all the resources and all the valuable results of that research and education behind us. Much more land is now under the Commissioners' powers than before, and the mood of the country is to allow the Commission to acquire a great deal of land which this House, for political and other reasons, might not have been so willing that they should have acquired 20 or, perhaps, even, 10 years ago. I do not think anyone will argue, against the background of the figures that the Report provides, the need for a large-scale policy; or, that, 5,000,000 acres is too big a claim. I do not think it is anything of the kind. That -claim is not extravagant and does not reflect anything more than the urgency and the importance of our economic and strategic requirements.
The proposals for internal marketing and transport developments are absolutely on the right lines and are completely necessary. A great deal of economy could be effected had we had proper access to forestry and woodlands instead of having to battle through in the chaotic and costly

way we have been doing. The idea of forest holdings with good conditions for the holders justifies to some extent the acquisition of a small amount of arable land in connection with these forest holdings, and I would not quarrel with the Commissioners in their aim to provide a composite living for these men in the spare-time cultivation of arable land and fully paid employment in afforestation at the same time. I think it is necessary to provide such ancillary occupations. Then we all agree that the Commission has come to the right conclusion in proposing to continue the licensing system for the felling of privately-owned trees in the interests of the conservation of private woodlands. Again we have to take the conservation problem from the national point of view, especially in relation to war-time, and to regard the possibility of this question arising in relation to a future war.
With regard to the acquisition of land, we all recognise that it is necessary; and we would not limit it to any smaller area-than the Commissioners suggest themselves. In fact, I think there is even room for an expansion of their idea of the minimum area that should be acquired. With regard to the encouragement of private woodlands, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that you cannot afford simply to pamper advocates of private ownership. We must deal with the question as one of national urgency and national need and if the private forests have proved uneconomic, and strategically dangerous, in the past, that is not an argument for making a 25 per cent. grant based on public loans to try to make them pay their private way. I think, also, in order to get continuity of policy and a sound economic and scientific programme for a long term of years, it is necessary to have a planned programme under national control, with a Minister directly answerable to the House. The only way to attract the best men as forestry officers is to give them a guarantee of continuing employment under the conditions of State employment suggested by the Commission. I have no quarrel with them on that at all. They seem to have considered the conditions of the workers and forestry officers fully and fairly. The only way to get the best men is to guarantee continuity of employment with good conditions instead of throwing


them on the mercy of private owners who may be bankrupt to-morrow and to whom a 25 per cent, subsidy might not be sufficient to keep them solvent and to keep the employees in their job. The fact that we have a gerat deal of private timber has saved our shipping to some extent; but had we had a more courageous State policy and programme on the part of the Commission itself during the past 20 years, had we even had a proper short-term policy based on the Acland Report we could have saved, not only many hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping but the lives of many gallant seamen as well.
The conflict between the agricultural and livestock claims and the claims of the Forestry Commission must be settled, and I will give one short quotation from Sir George Stapledon's book "Make Fruitful the Land":
Our policy therefore should be one that aims, first and foremost, at maintaining the maximum possible acreage in the country always in a state of good heart. And, however much we must recognise and stress the importance of afforestation and sylviculture, we must always give a first priority to meeting the need for the maximum cultivation of our arable land and we must permit no encroachment whatever upon that priority and the second, and complementary, task of keeping all suitable land under livestock.
It is better that we should have plentiful food in the country, even that we should have plenty of wood, and it is better to be forced in war-time to import wood than forced, by the encroachment of forestry upon agriculture, to import more food. For, even without timber and even in war, we can survive longer than we could if we had not a fair amount of self-sufficiency in the matter of home-grown produce.
On the point of administration and responsibility, I agree with the principle of retaining the Commission. But the Welsh have an excellent claim to their own Commissioner. I agree with that partly because I hope that Welshmen will agree that we have the same claim in Scotland. I am not arguing this on a purely nationalist basis alone; but I say that we do require it because decentralisation in administration and control and day-to-day action is necessary. At the same time, I say that centralisation. of responsibility with a Minister answerable directly to Parliament for the central Government is necessary and desira

ble instead of having a Commissioner like the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, for whom I have all respect, answering Questions in the House and holding responsibility for things upon which he is incapable of influencing the Government. I should not like to see, however, the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland curtailed and centralised under a Minister who would have plenty of responsibility of his own to answer for and plenty of alleged shortcomings of his own to be criticised upon. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be pleased to be held jointly or directly responsible for Scotland provided he is given the power, authority and opportunity for carrying out the Scottish policy and programmes in their relation to the special questions of Scottish agriculture and all the other problems which are special to Scotland.
The importance of this Debate is enhanced, if anything, by the fact that it is only the third such Debate for many years. It is unfortunate that that should be the case; but it is perhaps a good thing that, even in the middle of a war and rather belatedly we should recognise in a larger and broader way the importance and scope of future forestry development and planning. I hope that every encouragement will be given by the Treasury, who alone can make the proposals in this Report possible and who alone can guarantee continuity in the work of the Commission and in the employment of staff and workers. I hope that every encouragement will be given by the Treasury and the Ministries concerned. The main reasons for the importance of this work are economic in peace time and both economic and strategical in wartime. It is important, also, in redressing to some extent the present unbalance of our urban and rural economy by giving direct employment in the countryside to large numbers under good conditions. Finally, we must have regard not only to the economic and the purely utilitarian side of forestry, but also to the side which affects an important aspect of country planning, that is, in beautifying the countryside and preserving of amenities. And we shall support the proposals of the Commission, for the creation of new national parks and adding attractions to those area which in future will depend more than ever on the tourist


traffic; in covering up to some extent the scars which industry has left of what were once beautiful parts of the country; and in all those questions relating to enhancing the attraction of the landscape and the beauty of the face of the land.
I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends in the Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to have some regard for afforestation in the wider schemes, quite apart from its own intrinsic economic value as timber. I want them to have regard, in afforestation, and in relation to the planning of agriculture, to the protection of places like the Western Isles of Scotland (if I may put a claim forward on behalf of my own constituency). For, places like the Western Isles are almost completely with-out trees. There are a few trees only round churches, schools and manses. There are, of course, many other parts of the north country in the same condition. We must do a fairly large amount of uneconomic planting, in the sense that it will be of no value from the point of view of forestry, in order to break the wind and to protect to some extent the agricultural land from sand-blow and excessive water accumulation in these open and wind-swept places. Apart from these various criticisms and suggestions, balanced by a certain amount of praise, on the general Report, I think that we can with full confidence commend the Report's main proposals to the Government and to the favourable consideration of Parliament.

Mr. Palmer: I think it would be proper for me to start by mentioning that I approach this subject with a certain direct personal interest, in that I am a private woodland owner, but I am sure the Committee will recognise that my interest is wider than that one. It is not necessary at this stage of the Debate to go over the need for greatly increased afforestation in this country. The right lion. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) made what he called an irresistible case, and he made it in a way for which the Committee and the country can be grateful. Many speakers have expressed their gratification at this Report of the Forestry Commission, and I should like to add my tribute to Sir Roy Robinson and other people associated with him for having

produced a very forceful, practical Report and, I will not say visionary, but a document with a great deal of vision in it. I would like to make one or two remarks about the first two essentials which are laid down in the Report, on page 87. Several Members have referred to the responsibility that must be taken either by a member of the Government or under the existing arrangements by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye or someone in that position.
I think that there is a strong case in favour of having a Minister responsible for forestry answerable to the House and sitting in the Cabinet. I am not sure whether if this big development takes place, as I hope it will, it will be fair either to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Forestry Commission in the House or to the House itself that the present arrangement should continue, but one thing I am sure about is that it is much better to have no Minister at all than to have two Ministers such as the Minister of Agriculture for this country and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I cannot conceive that forestry can be developed under two Ministers in this Island, which, after all, is not a big one, although North of the Tweed conditions are somewhat dissimilar from those South of the Tweed. To split up afforestation between two different Departments would be a foolish policy and not in the interests of the nation's forestry as a whole, I understand that one or two Members from North of the Tweed are anxious to run their own show, but before they urge this on the Government too strongly I hope that they will consider the national interest as a whole. We want a more or less independent forestry body responsible to the Minister but acting as a semi-autonomous body running a big executive job on its own. If the body and the finance which it is accorded are split up, I do not see how we can get a satisfactory result. We might even get a demand for a third body under the Secretary of. State for Wales. That would be a bad arrangement.
We want forestry to be under a Minister, and perhaps the best Minister would be someone in the position of the Lord President of the Council. We want a Minister who will not be too directly concerned with the day-to-day admin-


istration of the body but who will be strong enough in the Cabinet to ensure continuity of policy by being able to go to the Treasury and carrying weight there. The question of continuity is largely a financial matter. My hon. Friend below me suggested that much of the forestry expenditure should be financed out of loan, and I would like to support that view. There are two real reasons why we should treat the matter like that. Forestry has not merely an invested value which we measure in cash returns, although we can measure it in that way, but it is also an insurance against circumstances similar to those of to-day rising again in a future emergency. There is a further reason why we should not keep forestry expenditure on a year-to-year basis. We cannot tell how much money we shall have to spend in a particular year because conditions of weather and climate, and so on, vary. It is important that the Commission should know how much they are expected to spend in to years and be able to expend from year to year in an elastic kind of way, so that if they have not spent the full amount in one year they can carry over the balance to another year without any interference from the Treasury or the House. The most practical method of financing forestry seems to be to do it for 10 years by loan.
As regards the forestry authority, I hope we shall continue the system whereby Members of all parties are represented on it. This should not be a political matter, and that seems to be the best way of ensuring continuity from year to year. As one of those who will probably be affected by the proposals for closer relations with private owners, I would like to say how much I, and I believe many private owners, will welcome closer relations with the forestry authority. We shall naturally be anxious, as everybody will be, that those relations shall be on the best possible footing. I believe that they may be mutually beneficial, not only to owners but also to the forestry authority itself. I am sure that I am not saying anything offensive to the Forestry Commission when I say that I do not think they would feel that it would be reasonable to assume that any single forestry body should have a monopoly of the best ideas and all the experience

on this subject. On the contrary, a lot of useful ideas may come from private, owners and could be pooled through the medium of the Forestry Commission to the general national advantage. There is one thing I would stress. I hope that we shall not have an insufferable number of forms and returns to be filled up. A few hours of really good discussion on the spot in woodlands is worth many tons of paper returns.
As regards the State afforestation proposals, I would not criticise the figure of 5,000,000 acres in detail, as we have not the material to do so, but a very striking case has been made out—well, I do not want to venture too far, and I will say that the case about increasing afforestation at some expense to food production has certainly been proved. Great stress has also been laid upon education. This seems to be absolutely fundamental, because however much money we may vote here, however much we may plan, and however much we may alter the constitution of the authority itself, we shall not get enough good trees grown in this country unless there is a sufficient number of people who know how to grow them. We must encourage the forestry service, making it attractive and making promotion possible in order to get the best people. But not only is a forestry service needed. I hope that the plans suggested in the Report, or similar plans, for more facilities for training all kinds of people occupied with forestry will be developed; and I also hope the forestry authority will co-operate very closely with the Board of Education, not only in order to continue after the war the forestry camps, which are one of the best ways of introducing young people to the elements of forestry and interesting them in it, but also in order to develop, perhaps, area schools or colleges for young foresters so that by degrees we may build up in this country a race of forestry families—there is no healthier existence for children—just as we have people growing up as farmers, seafarers or miners. I should like to see a race of foresters recognised as a part of the national life, just as forestry has to become part of the national life like agriculture and seafaring.
I was glad to hear what my right hon. and gallant Friend had to say about amenities, about planting to please as


well as to pay. We are glad to have the assurances he gave and we hope to see evidence of it everywhere. I am surprised that not much reference has been made to rabbits. Anybody who has had anything to do with woodlands has strong feelings about rabbits, and I do not see why the subject should not be taken as a matter of great seriousness in Parliament and the country. Only determination and organisation are needed in order to exterminate rabbits altogether throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. The time has come for the Forestry Commission to enter into consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland and war agricultural executive committees to see whether it is not possible to organise a campaign not on a county basis but on a national basis. I do not see why we should not use, if not now, at any rate soon after the war, some form of organisation such as we have already in existence, but on a voluntary basis—like the Home Guard and Civil Defence. An organisation has grown up for various purposes during the war, and I do not see why we should not make use of something of the sort for this national purpose after the war.
As regards private woodlands, I agree that it is up to private owners to accept this scheme as being a proper conception in the national interest. If private owners cannot, with State assistance, put their woodlands into proper order, it would be proper for the State to take them over and run them, but I do not think we have yet reached that stage. I should not think it was in the national interest for the State to run all the woods in the country. Private owners can make a definite contribution to forestry, as they have done in the past. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend did mention that they were providing 80 per cent. of the pit props in use. I am afraid I am prejudiced in favour of private enterprise. It is inevitable that I should be.

Whereupon, THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Settled Lands and Trustee Acts (Court's General Powers) Act, 1943.
2. Telegraph Act, 1943.
3. Pensions and Determination of Needs Act, 1943.
4. Grand Union Canal Act, 1943.
5. Bridgwater Gas Act, 1943.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

(Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.)

FORESTRY COMMISSION

Question again proposed, "That a Sum, not exceeding £400,000, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. Palmer: I was just talking about the dedication scheme and the form of financial assistance under that scheme. I hope that the method proposed in the Report will be looked at before it is finally decided upon. My first reason for asking that is that the rate of the grant should be related to the cost of planting per acre. As the cost of planting and rates and taxes are variable figures and may change in the future, I hope that a good deal of care will be taken before that figure is finally fixed. As regards felling licences, I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that there is no alternative to their continuance at the present time, but I hope they will not be continued indefinitely and that their application will not be too rigid in certain respects. There are a number of points which ought to be watched, including the supply of timber for estate development, thinnings and small woods, which should not be treated too severely by this method.
My last point is in regard to the sylvicultural system and its development in this country. There is a great deal of tree felling going on, both for soft and hard woods, but I hope we shall develop a selective system of felling, and I ask the Government to consider the wisdom of any clear-cut hard-wood felling which


involves the cutting down now of trees which are less than 10 or 12 inches quarter girth, which does not seem prudent or worth while.

Mr. Storey: The Report has shown us that, in spite of initial difficulties and political and financial insecurity, the Forestry Commission have, between the two wars, made a good start in building up a reserve of timber and have made some contribution to our war effort. If the nation learns its lesson—and we should remember that it is the second lesson—there is no doubt that the nation should embark upon a more substantial programme. Of the programmes which have been placed before us in the Report, the desirable and the intermediate, the desirable seems the obvious choice. There is small difference in the early difficult years after the war between the two programmes and by the time there is a substantial difference, our recovery should be such that we are able to take the desirable programme in our stride.
In sylviculture and in general administration, the Commission have a good story to tell, and the future problems are rather those of development than of change. If we are to embark during the first 20 postwar years on a programme which will be five times the achievement of the 20 years before the war, we must contrive that the Commission have a greater financial stability and greater political strength. As to how that can be achieved, I will have something to say later on. I would first of all say a word or two about some of the proposals in the Report.
If we undertake the desirable programme, I have some doubt that the Commission is not looking, at any rate in England, too much to the rough grazings for its afforestable area. There are approximately 4,000,000 acres of rough grazings which are afforestable, half of them in England and Wales and the other half in Scotland. If from those, 3,000,000 acres are to be taken, and if they were evenly divided between England and Scotland, it would mean that three-elevenths of the total, and probably more than half of the effective English and Welsh grazings, would be taken from sheep and cattle. With the increase in our tillage, with the decrease in our Lowland grass flocks and the consequent demand for hill sheep and the crossbreeds built upon

them, it may well be that in the national interest we should look to a larger contribution to the necessary forest acreage by the co-ordination of marginal agricultural land in our existing woodlands and to a re-good demand on our lower hill grazings.
In considering this question, it seems to me that the Commission have ignored the progress made during the war in turning rough grazing to useful agricultural purposes. Account should be taken of this progress and its probable development, as also of the effect of marginal agricultural land upon the price structure necessary for a prosperous agriculture, and a balance should be struck between the interests of agriculture and of forestry. The need to strike such a balance shows that the question of the provision of afforestable land is intimately bound up with agriculture, and it seems to me that while the Commission should continue to be responsible for sylviculture and for general administration of our forests, the agricultural Ministers should be responsible for the provision of land.
I welcome what the right hon. Baronet had to say about small woods. The impression I gained from the Report was that the Commissioners were inclined to dismiss too readily this matter of the small woods, but what he said seemed somewhat to broaden what the Report actually proposes. The small woods have made a useful contribution to our war effort, and they may well again be a useful reserve, while at the same time they may meet the needs of shelter and amenity. I hope that the small woods will receive not only advice but, like the small woods in the dedicated scheme, will receive some measure of assistance. Such assistance need not be uneconomic, if it were given in the form of a loan on the security of the timber. Indeed, I am not sure that the assistance to the dedicated woods would not be better given in the form of a loan, perhaps interest free, until they are self-supporting. With grants, the State has no further financial interest in the timber and is able to cancel its grants in time of financial stringency. With loans the State has every inducement to see that the crop is properly managed, brought to maturity and properly harvested.
I am glad that- the Commission foreshadow being more actively concerned in the marketing of timber. Our heavy wartime timber fellings and the need to con-


serve timber after the war will make it difficult to maintain an efficient home timber trade in this country, and there seem to be good grounds why the Commission should change their policy of selling timber in the round and join with landowners and timber merchants in cooperative facilities for marketing of timber and adequate research in its utilisation. I welcome the importance attached to research and the development of research as regards sylviculture and the utilisation of timber which are proposed, but is there adequate research in the substitution of other materials for timber in those industries which make a heavy drain upon our timber resources? Take the newsprint industry, which makes a very heavy drain upon the resources of timber in the Empire. It seems to me that here is a field for research which may well be investigated upon an Empire basis to see whether we can find some alternative to wood pulp for the newsprint industry and so restrict the drain which that industry makes upon our resources.
Mention of research leads me to comment on the proposal that there should be committees of the Commission for England and Wales and for Scotland. If the Forestry Commission is to be efficient and effective, it seems to me that it should cover the widest possible area, certainly an area not less than the whole of Great Britain, so that it may offer scope for the most highly qualified personnel and adequate marketing and research facilities. When that is secured, it does, however, seem desirable that the Commission should work in committees upon which those with special knowledge of English, Welsh and Scottish problems should be co-opted and that the main committee should co-ordinate the work as a whole and retain the benefits of a common staff and common marketing and research. Such an arrangement would fit in with what I have already said about the Ministers in charge of agriculture being responsible for the provision of land. If the Commission worked through sub-committees it would be easy for them to keep in touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland, and the Minister of Agriculture in England and Wales.
But I would go further. I also think that these agricultural Ministers should be responsible for the representation of the Commission in Parliament and for the adequacy of the country's forestry pro-

gramme. If we were to have direct Ministerial responsibility, I think there would be less chance that forestry would be sacrificed in time of financial stringency, than there would be if no Minister is responsible, as now, or if the Lord President assisted by two Ministers and one civil servant were responsible as is suggested in the Report. In conclusion, I would make a plea that there should not be too long a delay in announcing a decision upon our agricultural programme. The agricultural programme is so bound up with our forestry programme that the preparation of the latter cannot be proceeded with alone. If valuable years are not to be lost, it is essential that preparation should start soon, so that at the earliest date we may have a reserve of timber which may meet a substantial proportion of our home consumption and be a standby for any further national emergency.

Mr. Quibell: I consider myself fortunate in being able to take part in this Debate on such an important subject as forestry. As one who has, along with the rest of the Commissioners, signed this Report, I make no apology for doing so and should like here to say that one must remember that, after all, this Report has been signed by men of every political complexion and even nationality. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) expressed surprise that the signatures of my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and myself should be attached to a document like this. I think if he had just looked through it, he would have discovered that, so far as we are concerned, we signed that document not as coming from ourselves alone but as a Report that embodied the best that all of us could give. The Report embodies the general principles of give-and-take to which, obviously, in a body such as this, we have to consent.
It has one reservation. No one has mentioned it because they do not think it important enough to merit attention or consideration in this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has, suddenly, in these later years, become a kind of revolutionary and would revolutionise and socialise everything—though one can remember the days when he was not helpful to those who professed such principles in this House. He criticised the set-up of the Commission. The Report


is by no means, I suppose, the last word in this respect, but it is a Report which has been presented to the Government and the Committee for consideration, and if it requires certain amendments and perhaps deserves certain criticism, so far as they are directed towards making the Report better and strengthening its purpose—which is growing timber and the expansion of forestry in this country—they would be favourably considered by the Commission and, I suppose, by the Government to that extent. I do not know whether I am entitled to deal with the hon. and learned Member's statement that he would like to put this Commission under the Minister of Agriculture and to deprive the Minister of deep-sea fishing. I think, without exception, we part company with him in that respect.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Quibell: All of us, that is to say the Commissioners. I was speaking of those who had signed the Commission's report. [Interruption.] I have no doubt my hon. Friend who interrupts will get his turn. If he will let me go on, I shall be obliged. So far as that Report is concerned, I say we accepted it unanimously, and as far as the set-up is concerned, again I think there cannot be very much complaint about it. There are four Scottish representatives who have signed this Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has any Scottish Socialist signed it?"] I cannot say what they are in Scotland. It is very difficult to decide in this House what they are. So far as the Members of the Commission are concerned, I am not in a position to say whether the Members are Socialists or not. In any case it is peculiar how some people are really revolutionary and yet when they come here, they want three Internationals instead of one in order to control forestry. This narrow-minded nationalism is a thing which I deplore and it is growing in some quarters where I never expected to see it develop.
One pleasing feature of the Commission's work has been the whole-hearted desire of Members of every differing political and national complexion, to produce this Report. The Commissioners, I think, feel very gratified, and ought to be very gratified, at the favourable reception which the Report has received from the

Press and public. That there will be criticism is to be expected and indeed welcomed, because it enables extended answers to be given and explanations made which are not and cannot be fully brought out in the Report itself. There have been reports of the Commission's work concerning which some people think that in some cases not enough hardwood planting has been indulged in by the Commission. I do not think there is a member of the Commission who has not received, in one form or other, certain criticisms to the effect that we have planted too many conifers and that not sufficient hardwoods have been planted, or that if sufficient, they were not quite in the right places. I think the answer is, so far as the consumption of timber is concerned, that if 96 per cent. of soft wood is consumed in this country, it follows, as a practicable contribution to the rehabilitation of our timber supplies, that we should attempt to supply locally the timber which is required in the country.
As hon. Members know from letters in the Press and other criticism, it is suggested that the period is too long; that a span of ten years is far too long to look ahead and that in 50 years some of us will not be here. I do not know who will be here. But I hope to be here for the period for which we are planning. Provision is made in this' Report for a period of, say, five, six or seven years, when the Government shall re-examine the whole problem, and in the light of experience see whether they will reconsider it and what kind of programme we should embark upon for the succeeding years. I think so far as timber is concerned, we should take the long view. At one time, I in common with many others shared the belief that we could not grow timber successfully in this country, but I have been privileged to see some of our forests, and I am bound to confess that I have had to modify my views in this respect. I have been using timber for many years, and for a long time was very much prejudiced against English timber. Now I have a feeling that if timber had been grown in sufficient quantities, where it could have been properly machined, seasoned and prepared even to its manufactured state, the prejudice in the trade which is the largest consumer of timber would have been dispelled long since.


In common with the other Commissioners I have visited forests in various parts of the Kingdom where we are growing some of the finest timber that can be grown anywhere. I really believe that if arrangements could have been made for Members to have seen some of the forests I have seen, it would have been an education to them, as it has been to me, to see the wonderful timber which has been growing, some of it trees 60, 80, 100 and 120 feet in height. I consider that the very greatest credit is due to the Chairman of the Forestry Commission and his officials for the state our forests are now in and the wonderful timber we are growing in many parts of the country. I would like to see that work develop in areas like, say, Thetford, where we have a forest area of 52,000 acres. I think it is highly desirable to get on with the job. This is a great forest area in which there can be trees in almost every stage of development, where I believe myself that from the seeding to the planting stage, from the brashing to the thinning stage, continuous employment could be given for an entirely new village community, and it ought to be our aim to set up schemes in areas such as Thetford in Norfolk and similar areas where there is 40,000 or 50,000 acres of land, some of it planted, but a certain amount not planted. Plants should be established for processing, pulping, machining, etc., either by the setting up of a public corporation or, if it is preferable, by the State itself.
Criticisms may have been levelled at the Report in relation to private woodlands. I think the idea behind the minds of the Forestry Commission in considering the tremendous devastation of woodland that has taken place in this war is that, as soon as possible, everyone who can do so should be encouraged to make a contribution and should begin to plant trees. The object is the growing of timber and the only way in which we can do so is to get all people to cooperate. It is admitted that owing to the operation of taxation—Death Duties and the like—the private woodland owners or many of them could not afford to wait, because it was so long before they could hope to get a return on the outlay of their money. In some cases Death Duties have been difficult to meet, and immature wood
has been cut.
Practically every Member whom I have heard to-day agrees that the system of felling licences must continue after the war, until we get a reserve of timber which will make the nation secure. The private owner comes along and says help must be given to him or he must cut the timber. It has been said that we were giving the private woodland owner 25 per cent. of the cost, on condition that he complied with the standard of forestry set out by the Forestry Commission itself. But the 25 per cent. is a percentage of the net cost, until such time as the forest itself, by thinnings and sales, becomes an economic proposition. Then the owner has still to afforest to the standard set by the Commission itself and submit to inspection by the Commission. It was a good compromise, which has been accepted by the Scottish Royal Forestry, the English Royal Forestry, the Central Landowners, and everyone with whom the Commission has discussed the matter. It is, to that extent, an agreed Report.
So far as we are concerned, it is not the last word. It may be that as a result of this Debate and of discussions with the Government, certain modifications will have to be made. It is in that spirit that we have approached the matter. I believe that it will improve the standard of forestry in this country. I have heard and read that there is a big demand for division of authority. Quite recently there was a meeting in Scotland of the people there who are growing timber. I should have thought that if there was
opposition, it would have been more likely to come from them than from other sources, but at the meeting referred to only three votes were given for a separate authority for Scotland. That at any rate, has cooled down those who have been demanding a separate authority for Scotland. On the present authority there is Scottish representation. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is a Welshman, but he took a Welshman's place on the Commission at any rate; and he is not filling that place badly. In any case, no Commissioner looks upon himself as representing Scotland or England. He looks at the business side of it all, as part of the internal economy of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "For English owners."] I am not an English owner.
I should like now to speak about unemployment. The. Report points out, in paragraph 225, that for our programme


we desire 12,000 houses. It is a rather formidable programme, but an essential one. If we are to succeed, our workers must have decent homes, good wages, and regular employment. This they now have in most cases. We have bought some estates where, under existing circumstances certain people have to make the best of the houses that are there. I am riot proud of that, nor is the Commission, but we have taken preliminary advice on this matter. The houses, at least, must conform to the standard of those built for the working classes by urban and town councils. We shall require 2,000 miles of new roads, for the transport of timber, and water supplies and, for fire fighting. The only thing we are waiting for is the word "Go," and when we get the word we will go to it, although the programme is by no means small. Take the case of the Forest of Thetford, in East Anglia, which has been grown on bad sandy soil, not agricultural land by any means. If you put a crop of sugar beet there, you would find after a windy night that it was in the next field. The land never has grown anything but rabbits, gorse, bracken, and the like. It indirectly employed six to seven men. Now that forest land employs 107 men, and when it is fully developed, it will employ 200 men. Is not that a contribution?
The great difficulty at present is to obtain suitable labour. This is work of the highest importance, and it will make a great difference to post-war employment. It is work of this kind that will make the Beveridge schemes possible, and will help to maintain them. My experience, from a boy, of a forest just outside my own division was that it never grew anything. It was the very worst kind of land that one could visualise. The Commission leased it and planted it, and it now produces fine timber, spruce and pine, and other woods. Prior to the Commission taking it over it never employed anyone. Now it is employing numbers of men and women. We want homes built for those people. I believe that afforestation is going to make one of the biggest and most certain contributions to post-war employment. Figures relating to unemployment are given in pages 40 and 41 of the Report. Even in 1909, Keir Hardie, when giving evidence before the Commission, was looking ahead, and he visualised a

central authority and self-contained communities. It is interesting to read a resume of the evidence which he gave to the Commission then. It shows how little our people have travelled, and how far ahead of us he was, even in 1909. If we take the figures from "German Forestry" and apply them to the proposed programme of this Report, we shall be able to reckon on establishing at least 250,000 men in rural England, in healthy surroundings and regular employment, and I believe at good wages. The need for forestry authorities to be properly equipped is stated on page 11: quoting the Acland Report it says:
The first essential is a Forest Authority equipped with funds and powers to survey, purchase, lease and plant land, and generally to administer the areas acquired, with compulsory powers, to be exercised when needed, after due enquiry and the award of fair compensation. The care of forestry, now divided among several departments, should be centralised in this body.
Even the Acland Report emphasised the importance of the evidence given by Keir Hardie in 1909. Only 3,000,000 acres are required for the designated programme. Cannot we take this small area, which, when completed, would provide for 30 per cent. of our national needs? There is a considerable acreage, in addition, of marginal agricultural land, of a low quality, and it is doubtful whether, except in an emergency, that land can be used for crops. We know that under the stress of this war certain land has been cultivated because of national needs, and that some of that land will go out of cultivation after the war. We want power to get hold of such marginal land. If there is a farm or a patch of land which has a high agricultural value, the policy of the Commission has been, and I hope will be—because I am an agriculturist as well as a member of the Forestry Commission—to discuss the best use that can be made of the land.
It has been said that, in some cases, the Commission has taken land which it ought not to have taken. Let me tell of one case. In one area in Scotland the land was said to be a farm. It consisted of 7,000 acres, and the total rent was £80 a year, or 2s. 2¾d. per acre. I leave Members to consider whether that could be considered good agricultural land. It must have been of a very low quality, and it would bring infinitely better results if put into forestry. A lot of this land should be purchased and planted and by


so doing it could make a profitable contribution to the rebuilding of the countryside.
The mechanisation of farming operations alone makes the subject of employment in the rural areas one of very great importance and I believe that forestry provides the answer to what we can do about it. Mechanisation is being carried on to such an extent in this war that many men who come back may be out of work in consequence. I believe that in rural England we can help to meet the problem of employment in the countryside and, if for no other reason than that of dealing with the employment problem, we should be allowed to get on with our job at once. I express the earnest hope that this Debate will show that in all parts of the Committee there is a real desire to achieve the object at which we are aiming. In spite of the little difficulties we may have in Debate, the object should be to build up the countryside and to provide employment for these men. Our sole aim has been and should be to concentrate on the task dealt with in this Report, the one object of which is to further the practice of afforestation in this country and the industrial welfare of our land.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Although I have been a Member of this House for 14 years I did not think that I would live to see the day when an hon. Friend of mine, a Member of the once great Liberal party, would be advocating the nationalisation of land and a Member of the Labour party would be taking up the challenge. I do not intend to detain the Committee as there are a number of other hon. Members who wish to speak. I would like to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Commissioners on the work they are doing, and have done, with very little political or public encouragement. We are a very curious country in regard to our attitude between wars. We have been fighting wars for 500 years and have the peculiar felicity of not contemplating the possibility of our being engaged in another war so long as we have successfully emerged from one. One can realise what actually happened, when in the year 1922, four years after the greatest war in which this country had ever been engaged, during which we had been hard pressed for timber, a Committee appointed by this House actually recommended the abolition of

the Commissioners and also of the work they were doing. I hope that that sort of lunacy will not happen again.
I am going to pass over a number of things I wished to bring to the attention of the Committee and confine myself to two aspects only. On the question of the administration of the Commission, the Commission has advocated that in the event of a Minister being recommended by this House to take charge of forestry, it should be the Lord President of the Council. He seems to be the Minister nominated to look after all oddments. I am not in any doubt as to what Minister should do it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) thought that that Minister had too little to do, but my view is that the Lord President of the Council is a very hard-worked Minister. Anyone who realised the amount of work which is really added on to the office of the Lord President of the Council at the present moment would be amazed to find the diversity and the importance of the work he has to do, scientific and otherwise. I, personally, would be in favour of transferring the functions of the Commission to the Ministry of Agriculture. I have no hesitation at all in coming to that conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) hoped that if that happened it would not combine the administration of forestry in Scotland. I cannot sec what harm there would be in that. Agriculture has been very well looked after in this country in England, Scotland and Wales—and I do not see why the Minister of Agriculture should not be capable of doing this work. It has to deal with land. The main purpose of the Forestry Commission is to grow trees, which must be grown on land. It is clear that any Minister of Agriculture appointed to take charge of forestry must carry out the policy of the House on it; and he could reconcile the clash of interests better. Moreover, the Forestry Commission are themselves considerable agricultural owners. They have 1,500 holdings of agricultural land and, from that point of view also, much can be said for the Ministry of Agriculture taking over. We do not know how long the present Minister of Agriculture may remain in office and I do not know what promotion could be given to him. He certainly has earned it. But I do not visualise any office in the Administration where he could do better


work for the country than he is doing now and which will be needed in the post-war years in his Department.
Forestry is a matter which certainly interests the country from which I come, namely, the Principality of Wales. I make no apology whatever for bringing it to the notice of the Committee. I want to call attention to the fact that, although Wales is responsible for between one-quarter and one-third of the acreage of the Forestry Commission in England and Wales and employs between one-quarter and one-third of its personnel, and has very special characteristics of its own, there is not a word in this Report about Wales as such. It is "England and Wales." I should be very sorry to quarrel with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, for whom I have such a great regard personally, but I have to be very critical of him and his colleagues on this particular aspect. In the list of members of this Commission there is not a single Welsh individual. The Report mentioned that all parties should be on the Commission. I see no representative of either section of the Liberal Party. There are two Conservative and two Labour members but there is no Liberal member, although there are 50 or 60 Liberal Members in this House, but that is by the way.
I want to press on the Committee the fact that Wales feels this matter very keenly and strongly and to say that we do not intend to go on indefinitely as a Principality without our complaints being redressed. Wales has etymological, geological, and geographical characteristics, and Wales ought to be represented on a body which deals specially with forestry. I had occasion in this House a year ago, on behalf of all the Members of Parliament for Wales—of all Parties at that time—I was Chairman of the committee—to call the attention of the Government to the fact that we had a definite promise given by the Deputy-Prime Minister of the day that in future Wales would be given adequate representation on every occasion and on every Departmental inquiry and Commission which concerned this country. The hon. Member who spoke last, rather deprecated the development of these national characteristics. Why, the very strength of Great Britain is in its national characteristics; England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have each

made a special contribution to the whole. If you want to develop a country to its greatest extent, you must develop all the characteristics of each nation within it. I am sure that if we do not do that, we shall lose something in the process. We have been for long the patient ox. We have been the ally of England for 400 years and longer than Scotland; we are useful for the prosecution of wars, but not useful even to be considered when it comes to representation on these matters. I should like to develop another aspect of forestry but in deference to the general feeling of the Committee that there are other Members who wish to be called, I conclude my remarks

Mr. Wootton-Davies: It is a privilege to a back bencher to take any part in a Debate such as this. What is done in afforestation will affect many things, our climate, our agriculture and perhaps one of the future great industries in England. With regard to the Report itself, I must add a word of congratulation and praise to the paean of praise which has already gone forth. The Report is informative, instructive and constructive. The Report looks a long way into the future, but I would ask whether we have really considered what it is driving at. In the Report various figures of importation are given, and I would draw the Committee's attention to the figures for wood pulp. I beg to suggest to the Committee that timber is grown for several reasons, largely for building purposes, perhaps for pit props and thirdly as a raw material for manufacture. Wood pulp is used in the manufacture of paper, plastics, artificial silk and so-called dope for motor car finishes.
I would stress the point that here is a Forestry Commission embarking on a policy which lies long years ahead, but immediately the war is over the country will want raw materials, and I suggest one of these is cellulose. It must therefore be decided which is the best way to produce this material, and I think the best way is not by planting forests, but by using the straw produced by agriculture. I am officially informed that in the year before the war we wasted or misused 1,000,000 tons of straw, and to-day we are misusing 2,500,000 tons of straw or 1,250,000 tons of cellulose, which could be used to feed cattle or could be used for the production of other goods. The four-yearly average


importation of wood pulp was 2,000,000 tons. If these figures had been put in year by year, the Committee might have found that the imports of wood pulp were 3,500,000 tons. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) talked about the employment of labour, but far more employment could be found by the utilisation of forest or straw products or cellulose.
I wish some further mention had been made of research work, not merely the growing of trees but of using them. From my own knowledge, one firm in America is to-day employing 400 research chemists on the utilisation of cellulose. It is said that in the first phase of Hitler's campaign the first thing he did was to get control of cellulose supplies. His war economy has been largely based on cellulose, whether from wood or coal. Therefore, I suggest that if I have made out a case for cellulose at all, it should not be left entirely in the hands of the Forestry Commission. The Ministry of Agriculture can give you a crop of 2,500,000 tons of straw a year or 1,250,000 tons of pure cellulose, which can be used for cattle food and on the production of artificial silk, plastics, alcohol, yeast and the like. There has been a coal age, there is now an oil age, and many think there will be a cellulose age. Cellulose is a compound from which thousands of things can be made and in my view is one of the future industries after the war. For that reason I plead that all the things that grow out of the ground should be under the responsibility of one Minister, who, I suggest, should be the Minister of Agriculture.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer, and that is hill land. I think the Report ignores what has been done by Sir George Stapledon, who has shown what can be done with these hill lands. I would like to give a personal experience. I am farming at least 300 acres of land between 1,200 feet and 1,375 feet above sea level. When I took my land it was supposed to carry one sheep per acre, but in my first experience of farming it nearly killed one sheep per acre. But I ploughed, limed and slagged, and although it is true it is not keeping 300 breeding ewes, but 175 breeding ewes, when the year finishes in September by the grace of God I shall have produced 12,000 gallons of milk and, I hope, 125 tons of oats and barley. What have I done? I have merely followed the

banner of the Minister of Agriculture. In the Report all this data about mutton and wool from hill farms is out of date. You have to revise your ideas. Go to Russia and see the crops they have grown in the Arctic Circle. What has been done there can be done here. But do not let us kill the goose that lays the golden egg. This hill land is most important for breeding good and sound stock, just as a hard life and conditions and good, wholesome food are important for breeding good men and women. Without these hill lands the lowland farms simply could not exist. I view with alarm the proposal that this land of ours, which is limited in size but which is fair land and most of which can be cultivated, shall be divorced from the man who should certainly be responsible for the things that grow out of it, namely, the Minister of Agriculture.
There are other things which I could mention about this Report, but I will mention only one—transport. While I agree that we should have these reserves of timber in this country, if it is only for insurance and nothing else, we must consider what effect this will have on our trade. It has been our habit to send coal to Scandinavia and bring back wood. It is a very dangerous thing to upset this balance, and I suggest that the freight on any timber carried in England would, on the average, probably be greater than carriage from Scandinavia to this country. To the points I have made I hope some reply will be made by the Minister.

Mr. Donald Scott: I can well imagine that there are a large number of hon. Members who still wish to make their contribution to this Debate and therefore I shall make mine as short as possible by confining my remarks to the relationship between afforestation and hill farming so far as England and Wales are concerned, leaving the Scottish side of the problem to those more able to deal with it. I listened with great interest to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and I trust he will understand that the disagreement I intend to express has nothing personal in it. Indeed, I have the highest admiration for his knowledge of the subject, and as a countryman I am deeply thankful for all he has done for forestry and for agriculture in the past. I would also like to congratulate the authors of this Report. They have


brought together a vast amount of information and have made thereby a real contribution to the future. But I cannot help feeling very sorry indeed that its birth has been premature. After all, forestry is the little sister of agriculture, and in the best regulated families it is customary to arrange the marriage settlement of the elder daughter before concerning oneself with the younger member of the family. But for some reason, perhaps best known to themselves, His Majesty's Government have decided to allow publication of this Report. In other words, they have put the cart before the horse, a rather wooden cart before the horse of flesh and blood and quite candidly, I find it extremely difficult to think of the place of forestry in the rural economy of the future without knowing something of the place that agriculture will fill.
I would ask the Committee to turn their attention for a moment to that part of the Report which deals with this question of mutton and wool production from the hills and the effect that forestry has upon that. On pages 39 and 40 a lot of detailed figures given. I do not intend to challenge those figures to-day because time does not allow. I believe they can be challenged but I am prepared at the moment to accept them for what they are worth. I say that advisedly, because they give only a part of the picture; they do not give any picture at all with regard to the potential value of the hills and the cumulative effect of hill production. The parts missing in the picture are twofold. Firstly, there is the question of the potential value of hill lambs. These are not generally removed from the hills for immediate slaughter; on the contrary, the wether lambs are bought by low-country farmers for fattening, and the surplus ewe lambs are sold to those who buy them for breeding purposes. The most important part of this picture which is missing however is the question of the draft ewe. Perhaps a word of explanation may be necessary for the benefit of hon. Members who are not aware of hill-farming practice. The hill ewe, be it black-face, Cheviot or any other hill breed serves for a number of years in the rough-and-tumble life of the hill and at the age of five or six, its usefulness in that sphere of activity being exhausted, it is moved to another place

in order to produce cross-bred lambs. I can see that there is some sort of analogy between that procedure and the careers of certain politicians, but I will not follow it. It is very difficult to visualise the number of ewes which would be displaced from the hills should the recommendations of this Report be followed in full, but I would remind hon. Members that, at least, one-fifth of the ewes on the hill mountains and fells are brought into the low countries every year. They are crossed with other rams and their progeny are used for breeding cross-bred lambs. Thus the real importance of the hill sheep is not so much up there, but down in the low country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) emphasised, there will be terrific demands for this class of hill stock and the progeny of hill stock before the war is finished and long after. If we are to meet all the demands of the new and improved pastures, I think we must be very careful indeed how we deal with the mountain and fell land of the country which, after all, is the only reservoir of healthy foundation stock.
Just a word or two about shelter. I think anybody who knows anything of hill farming will recognise at once that there is great need for planting strategic shelter belts on the hills, shelter for protection against wind, snow and driving rain. Over and over again, hill shepherds have told me that a good "bield" as we call it in the North, a good shelter, is as good as a full belly to the ewe, and its usefulness is particularly important during the lambing time. This shelter question enters largely into the question of reintroducing cattle into the hills. In the past the Forestry Commission has not normally planted shelter belts for the very good reason that it is not the most economic form of afforestation but surely the time has come when we must take the long view and realise that forestry and agriculture are inter-related, that one is the complement to the other. We have to realise that the time has arrived when the decision as to where to plant and where not and how to plant must rest with one central authority. If we could only get hold of those ideas I see no reason why a vast acreage should not be planted. I admit that there is still an enormous number of acres which might be planted in blocks—areas of worn-out bracken-covered and disease-


ridden land. The trouble has been in the past that they have been planted in the valleys and on the lower slopes of the hill, because it was the best land, and our hill tops have been immobilised. After all it is the intermediate and lowish land which is most capable of improvement.
I hope that in my hurried remarks I have helped hon. Members to make some sort of case for the undivided control over land which is going to be used for afforestation. It is only the Department, seeing the whole of the picture and knowing the whole of the facts, which can fairly assess the relative merits of forestry on the one hand, and agriculture on the other. Surely, the fit and proper person to hold the balance between these two not conflicting but inter-related interests, is the Minister of Agriculture of the day. We have heard a good deal about consultation but consultation is not enough. I have seen a dog consulting with a cat over a juicy bone and I repeat that consultation is not enough. I should like to ask the Committee to remember that, while dual control may have worked reasonably well in the past, it may not work so well in the future when, please Heaven, the land of the country will really come back into its own.

Mr. Parker: I think there has been general support for the Report and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Heywood (Mr. Wootton-Davies), a general backing for a forward policy. It is not too much to say that many would have liked the Report to go a little further as to what it is hoped to do in regard to afforestation in the coming years. Criticism has been advanced by people like the hon. Member for Heywood which is a little difficult to appreciate. He indicated opposition to increasing timber production on the ground that it might interfere with our foreign trade. I should have thought that any increase in timber production would be of a gradual character and that foreign trade would definitely adapt itself to that increase.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I suggested that a yearly crop of cellulose from straw might be more beneficial than a long-term policy of producing timber.

Mr. Parker: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I was taking the view that, on the whole, he repre-

sented the views put forward in "The Times" on behalf of certain members of the timber trade who rather deprecated any interference with imports from Scandinavia and other countries. I take the view that any decrease would be gradual and that, from the national point of view, it is desirable to build up assets in the way of timber, because in the years to come we shall have a growing world shortage with increasing demands everywhere for its use. Therefore, from a national point of view, we should be increasing our assets by building up a reserve, and I hope and trust that we shall hear some definite pronouncement as to what the Government propose to do about the Report. Now is the time when we should be told whether the Government accept the Commission's main proposals or not, and I hope it will be the larger programme which the Government will accept rather than the more limited one.
There has been a good deal of criticism advanced on behalf of the hill farmers against the idea of further afforestation. I think it is a very unfortunate controversy. It seems to me that the acreage which the Forestry Commission propose to take for further afforestation is a very small part of all the land in the country, and surely we can maintain, and even increase, our mutton production by better use of the hill pastures, which are not going to be afforested, as well as carry out the moderate programme put forward by the Commission. Surely we can have an answer, if not to-day at least when the Committee going into it reports as to what increase in mutton production we can have as the result of better hill pastures following on the work of Sir George Stapledon related to the planting programme put forward by the Forestry Commission. This controversy should be avoided, and we should try to go ahead with both schemes. There is really no contradiction between trying to carry out the two policies of more afforestation and an increase in our mutton production.
I should like to go in some detail into the question whether there ought to be more than one Forestry Commission in this Island. I deprecate very strongly the idea that we should have a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland and possibly later one for Wales. The suggestion of devolution giving a good deal


of authority to people in Wales and Scotland to do the job is the best way to deal with it, but we must have a unified service and unified plans for developing forestry in this Island. It is a very small Island, and I do not think there is room for a number of different separate services. There is first the point of view of personnel. If we are to train the personnel that we require, there must be the possibility of their getting full experience which they can only get in the whole of the Island, and there must be reasonable opportunities for advancement which only the whole Island can provide.
But there are other points. Scotland is not the wealthiest part of this Island. But there is the larger part of the land which can be used for afforestation. This work will necessarily require to be financed from the resources of the whole Island. There is not going to be a full opportunity for development of forestry in Scotland unless the financing of it can come from the resources of the whole Island, which means substantially a good deal from taxation or loans which will be raised in the southern part of the Island. That is the solid financial basis of the matter. Up to now 40 per cent. of the land which has been planted is in Scotland, and perhaps in future 50 per cent. may be. But I take the view strongly that if that is to be done, the finance must come from the finances of the whole Island.
I have recently been to Eire, and I understand from what has been said there during the election that every political party preached the need for more afforestation and has preached it ever since independence came to the country, but a very small amount of afforestation is taking place, although there is much land suitable for it. The answer is that there are not the financial resources in the country, allowing for the other claims on the Government, to have a big afforestation scheme. Our Scottish friends could learn from the experience of Eire when discussing whether there should be a separate authority for Scotland. When we are discussing economic planning we might learn from the experience of the Soviet Union. In that country each area has cultural autonomy and so on, but so far as economic plans are concerned,

the whole Union is taken as one unit, although people in different parts of it are expected to put up their suggestions to the centre. Finally, however, there is one plan. In this Island there should be one central plan in economic matters but with the greatest possible devolution. Any action we now take with regard to forestry will have bearings upon and be a guide to any other forms of planning economically which may have to follow afterwards.
I would like to say a word about employment. I think that the Commission, a little more than in the past, should try to draw on local labour in staffing its forests. There was strong pressure exercised in the past to draw on the unemployed in different parts of the country and to recruit forest workers from them. That is an understandable policy, but I take the view now that it would be wiser if the Commission drew more on local labour, because some of the opposition to the activities of the Commission has arisen because local people have felt that the employees of the Commission were people from outside and not from the locality. If the Commission were to draw on local labour, a good deal of the opposition would break down. We have to remember that hill farmers and other people who indulge in agricultural operations are people who live on the spot. When the Commission starts its activities it only gradually builds up its labour, and there is no vested interest of the local people in forestry. Therefore, in the initial stages the local people are against it. To overcome that difficulty the Commission should draw from local labour.
In developing small holdings, greater assistance might be given to the owners of the holdings by the development of a co-operative organisation among them. Just before the war I was in Sweden and found that there was a good deal of agitation about the bad conditions among the workers in the forest. It was alleged that some of the workers were the worst fed sections of the whole population. To overcome that difficulty the Government were creating small holdings, so that the workers in the forest would have a certain amount of work to do in the summer months and also that they could grow food and vegetables, support themselves, get the nutrition and food, which it was often difficult for them to get in isolated places, and give them a more balanced all


round livelihood. The Government assists them to create co-operative organisations through which to buy things for themselves and sell their surpluses. The same thing might be done with the development of afforestation in this country.
With regard to housing, I have seen some of the houses built by the Commission in the early days, and they were far from being desirable residences. Some were converted old cottages, and others were of the bungaloid type. Nowadays the buildings are of a much better quality. I would suggest that the Commission should try to carry out a policy of using local material when possible on its buildings and of putting them up in a local style and making them up-to-date erections. I would also suggest that experiments might be made with wooden buildings as the timber supplies become available. Standard types in a variety of styles of wooden buildings which are efficient and cheap can be got, and they would suit the areas in which they were erected. In the architecture of the buildings the Commission might show a little more imagination, because a large building programme will be required if anything like the forestry programme envisaged in the Report is carried out.
The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) emphasised earlier that the Report was an agreed Report and that people approached the problem with many different views. I do not think that that makes the Report any the worse. If we are to have the present National Government carrying out a report it must be a compromise between different points of view. I would like from this side of the Committee to emphasise that most of us dislike the idea of sinking public funds in private property and, as is suggested in this case, sinking public funds in private woodlands. If anything like that, however, will enable us to get the Report carried through, many of us will be prepared to accept a compromise of this kind. It is essential, however, that when public money is given to private persons there must be full public control—and that is provided for in this Report—and the public must be able to keep a watch on how the money is spent and see that there is no misuse of it. It is not an ideal policy. I take the view that the sooner we can get the land nationally owned the better.

With the war we are having a big increase in the value of land. There is a great deal of what I would call "funk money" going into land. Rent has risen only a small amount. There has been a big increase in the profits of farming and in agricultural wages, but the value of land has about doubled since the beginning of the war, though there has not been a corresponding increase of rent. That is primarily due to the fact that some people fear inflation and put money in land, feeling that, at any rate, the land will be there after the war is over. Much of that money will come out of the land in the four or five years following the war if there is still adequate control of rents. I would like to ask whether this rise in the value of land during the war will affect the proposed programme of the Forestry Commission. Will it make it more difficult for the Commission to acquire the land immediately after the war? It seems to me an important point, and it may be that if there is a big increase in the prices charged for the land the Commission want, they may have to use the compulsory powers mentioned earlier. I would like some comment from the Commission or the Government on that point, because it is an important one in discussing the future of their programme. I hope that the Government will be able to make some definite statement to-day and that it will be one promising to carry out the proposals of the Report. I am sure that the Committee as a whole will support them if they make such a statement.

Major Leighton: I wish to put forward the position of the owners of small woodlands. In talking of forestry one gets the impression that we are concerned only with big blocks of woodlands, but there must be in England a very large number of small woodlands, and we should not forget that "mony a mickle maks a muckle." I do not know the actual acreage of these small woodlands and how it compares with the acreage of the larger woodlands, but I think these small woodlands cover a great number of acres. They are not always maintained with a commercial end in view. There are a number of reasons for their existence. One, which has already been mentioned, is that they provide shelter; secondly, the timber may be grown for estate purposes; and, thirdly, the woods may be maintained in order to improve


the aspect of the countryside by blocking out ugly views. All these small woodlands have had to pay their quota towards the war effort and many trees have been felled. The position now on small estates is that there is not sufficient labour to keep down the undergrowth in the woodlands, in order that they may be ready for replanting, and the longer replanting is delayed the more expensive it will be. I have wondered whether the price that one gets for the trees will eventually pay for the cost of replanting. The Government offer a grant, but that grant, I am afraid, will be too small to give any real encouragement to replanting. The Forestry Commission would naturally pay more attention to the larger estates, and I ask the Government to reconsider the question of the grant in order to see whether they can increase it to a certain extent.
On the question of control, much as one dislikes control I presume that after the war there will be a certain amount of control over the land by the Government, both agricultural and woodland. If that be so it seems to me the Forestry Commissioners should be in very close touch with the Board of Agriculture. It strikes me that the whole business should be under the Board of Agriculture, with the Forestry Commission as a special Department of that Ministry. If there is to be another Ministry there will be great confusion, because there may be differences of opinion between one Ministry and the other, and I do not know how owners of estates will get on if they are told to do one thing by one Ministry and another thing by another Ministry. The third point I wish to make is that I hope the beauty of the countryside will not be destroyed. During the last decade or so many large estates have been broken up, and smaller estates will be broken up if Death Duties continue as they are. Then what happens? The land speculator comes along and acquires the land, and the first thing he does is to clear the timber and turn as much of it as he can into gold. The old squires did not turn all their trees into gold. They kept them for the sake of the beauty of the countryside. I do hope this aspect of the situation will be borne in mind. The hard wood trees, the oak, the elm and the ash, ought to be preserved. Coming back to this country from abroad, and looking out

sof the train windows, one always says, "What a beautiful country this is," and its beauty is largely due to the number of fine trees which are to be seen and what our ancestors have done. Therefore, if we really want to build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land we must maintain the arboreal beauty of the country.

Major McCallum: Time is short, and there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and therefore I will cut down my remarks and make one or two points only upon forestry as it concerns Scotland. An hon. Member opposite maintained that there is a controversy between the forestry interests and the hill sheep farming interests in regard to the future planting policy of the Forestry Commission. I think that is presenting the position in a very depressing light. The point is that we in Scotland—and I think I am speaking for the majority of people in Scotland—would welcome. planting-up by the Forestry Commission in post-war years. There is a great future for forestry in many parts of Scotland, in particular in the Highlands. What we do feel about the matter is that there has not been sufficient discussion of or attention paid to the more technical aspects of the hill sheep industry, and we also think that the figures presented by the Commission in this most interesting Report are not as correct as they might be. For instance, the comparison between the return to be got from an acre planted with trees and the return from it if it carried sheep is not quite fair, because the Report refers only to the plantable acreage and does not refer to the thousands, indeed, I might say tens of thousands, of acres of derelict hill land above the woods which at present carry or in the past have carried quite a number of sheep. I agree most sincerely with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) that a great deal could be done on these hill grazings by way of improving the grass, so making them still more valuable to the hill sheep farmer; in other words, the same development has to be carried out in regard to the hill sheep farming industry as by the Forestry Commission; but we admit and welcome the fact that there are vast areas, particularly in the remoter parts of Scotland, where planting could be most effectively carried out. We find, or we suspect, that those are not the


areas which the Forestry Commission propose to plant, because they are difficult of access and because there are difficulties of transport, housing and the other ancillary services in connection with forestry. I would therefore ask Members to put it out of their heads that there is any controversy or dislike by the hill sheep farming industry of afforestation as such.
A word or two should be said regarding the slur that seems to be cast upon the part played by the privately owned woods. I would recall to the minds of the Committee the fact that 80 per cent. of the timber supplied in this country for war needs is supplied by private owners and that very little has been supplied by the Forestry Commission. It is necessary to encourage private woodlands. I have heard on one or two occasions the astounding statement that forestry is divorced from agriculture. I must confess that I simply cannot understand such a statement. Surely most owners of woodlands are also farmers or they have farms on their estates, and all those whom I know have to balance their forestry planning and their agricultural planning. I cannot see how those two subjects can possibly be divorced one from the other.
As regards the activities of the Forestry Commission, there are a few points to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee. I speak from personal experience as I happen to represent a constituency in which there are 210,000 acres owned by the Forestry Commission, including the first and original national park, so I do know something about what is going on. I was astonished one day not very long ago to find the Forestry Commission planting trees in standing oats. That seemed to be a complete disregard for the agricultural value of the land. How it came about I do not know. I reported the matter, and I was assured that I must have been mistaken as it could not have been so. As a matter of fact, I had witnesses, who saw the oats standing there and the foresters planting tree by tree in the middle. Again we question very much the ability of the Forestry Commission to keep down vermin in the areas they have planted. The vermin in Argyllshire which emanates from the Forestry Commission's area is something in the nature of a plague. I have been assured by members of the Forestry Com-

mission that they offer rewards for the killing of vermin, but the trouble is that keepers, the vermin trappers if you like to call them such, employed by the Forestry Commission are almost always men in the neighbourhood of 80 years of age. I hope that may be only a war-time situation. Close to my home there is a forestry plantation, where one elderly keeper cannot get up to the top of the hill or the top of the plantation. On one occasion we solicited the aid of Forestry Commission workers to help us in a fox drive, owing to the serious depredations on our lands by foxes coming out of the plantations. We could not get the assistance. There are all kinds of complaints of that nature which show that there is not sufficient co-operation between the Forestry Commission, with their activities, and our hill sheep farming industry in Scotland.
I would now like to tell the Committee how I view the future control of forestry in Scotland. I speak advisedly for Scotland only. I have heard hon. Members give their opinions as to what should be done in England and Wales. I feel most seriously that as forestry is a matter of long-term planning carrying with it such matters as housing, education, health, drainage and the like, it ought to be carried out from now onwards, or at the end of the war, as part of the post-war planning of our country. I cannot see how that can be carried out by a separate organisation from our own Minister of Planning for Scotland, who is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Many of us feel that while forestry is an industry which requires a very long-term policy, so also is agriculture. Nobody can say that agriculture has not played its part in the national crisis up to now, and I do not see any reason why forestry, which must march with agriculture, should not be brought under the same control as agriculture in Scotland. At St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh I would like to see a Department of Forestry established, not under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but both under the Secretary of State for Scotland. He should decide what land should be handed over for afforestation and what land is required for agriculture. Machinery might be arranged so as to have a united forestry service, in so far as it is concerned with the promotions of experienced personnel, between England, Wales and Scotland.


As regards education and research, I feel that these should be combined for the two countries, but the actual carrying out and planning of post-war policy in afforestation in Scotland should be a matter over which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible and to whom we can apply when we are not satisfied with the conditions. A moment ago an hon. Member opposite said that we were being too nationalistic and not national enough. In Scotland we feel it is rather curious that on the Forestry Commission all the Members of this House sit for English constituencies and not one for Scottish, while the greater part of the forestry area is in Scotland and not in England. We feel also that it would be much better—I am not saying this wishing to be personal in any way to hon. Members who have done good work on the Forestry Commission—if the Commission were composed either entirely of Members of this House or of none at all. The responsibility for the Commission in this House should be on the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: I obviously must not detain the Committee and the Minister, whom we are all anxious to hear, so perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) will pardon me if my congratulations to him are necessarily as telescoped as my argument. I should almost like to take off where the last speaker has concluded, in regard to the relationship between the Report and Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he is satisfied that Scottish interests and Scottish problems have been fully considered and whether the Scottish branches of the National Farmers' Union were invited to give evidence or were consulted. Will he tell us whether evidence was given? Perhaps he will also tell us in what form approaches were made to the interested local authorities in Scotland and whether their opinions were consulted. There is something which worries hon. Members a good deal. I wonder whether the Minister would assure the Committee that the technical officers and divisional officers of the Commission were invited to offer their conclusions and their evidence. Perhape he will also assure the Committee that there is no separate report from the technical officers of the Commission, or no memorandum of any kind. I think it

most essential that the Committee should know that, though I am very optimistic that my right hon. Friend will have the good sense to tell the Committee that the Government will take a little time to make up their mind. [Interruption.] In reply to my noble Friend's interruption, I could put it this way, that we have become so accustomed to the Government saying that they need a little time that we will be very glad to applaud in this case, because I think the Report, with all its virtues, is rather hurried, and I think that fairly large holes have been picked in it to-day. One of the most successful and grievous holes was the arithmetical bit of picking from the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Wedderburn). It is rather sharp criticism of a body when they offer a Report to this Committee that their arithmetic in acreage is incorrect.
The Scottish Members are particularly concerned, because there is inside the Report itself abundant evidence that Scotland has suffered heavily under the scheme of administration of the Forestry Commission. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) rather twitted us about our narrow nationalism, and quoted to us Keir Hardie giving evidence in 1909, and said that Keir Hardie was for a single, unified service. I am afraid that the appropriate reply to that is that unfortunately we in Scotland have had an experience which Keir Hardie was spared. We have had 24 years of the Forestry Commissioners, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) has pointed to some of the grave deficiencies. The evidence is here in abundance. Look at paragraph 155. you will find that although we have previously been told that half the soft wood growing area is inside Scotland, under the 1924 census analysis in that paragraph only one-third of the country's soft wood was at that time being grown in Scotland. If you look at paragraph 219 you will find that there are 1,500 forest workers, almost, in the country, of whom only 24 per cent. are in Scotland, despite the fact that half the potential area in the Kingdom is in Scotland—[Interruption]—26 per cent. If you look at paragraph 212, you will find that our forest workers in Scotland are being housed in bothies. If you look at paragraph 162, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll referred, you will find there a statement about sparsity of population, about the young people


drifting away, about bad transport. There is not an hon. Member on this side of the Committee who has not said that with all the sincerity he can command to Government after Government here, including the Government, I am afraid, from my own party.
Surely that is not a reason why the Commissioners should run away from this problem, but a reason why they should get to work in those areas. It is the only economic proposition we can make to those areas. In a most excellent speech the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire stated his alarm about hill sheep and rather came into conflict with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). I do not think there is any reason to conclude that there is a conflict between getting these 3,000,000 acres, and, if not extending our hill sheep farming, maintaining it at its war-time level. We can complain of the niggardly research that has been done in so far as the Commission have been responsible In their peak year not
£16,000 was spent in research, which is just a dreadful criticism of ourselves.
There is no reference to the possible treatment of bracken land. I am told by every forester I know that it is axiomatic to say that if bracken grows there, timber could grow there. Here again is a huge area for research, and here is an area in which we may solve this arithmetical problem of how to find more sheep land and timber land. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I am not, even as a very junior Member of this Committee, very much impressed by the proposed administration. I think it is hardly in the best practices of this Committee that if we are to spend £47,000,000 in 10 years even such a distinguished non-Governmental Member as has presented the Report to us should reply to our questions. There has been a fairly hefty body of opinion displayed in the Committee putting forward a similar argument, and I certainly say that, so far as Scotland is concerned, we are gravely concerned by the present administration, and rather gravely disturbed about the untimely presentation of this Report.
There are at least six conflicting machines operating in Scotland just now. We have hill sheep, we have a Committee sitting on the utilisation of land, we have two Committees sitting on the implica-

tions of the Uthwatt and Scott Reports, and we have had this dreadful experience that where the exploitation of timber was most needed there, for a variety of reasons, the Commissioners have done least. There is a rather naive paragraph which suggests that if there is a Minister, there may be changes of policy. It is rather naive, because we have had no Minister in the last 24 years, and as the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye had to point out to the Committee in presenting his Report, we have had three bad and perhaps necessary—but bad and sudden—changes of policy. One cannot reason that because a change of Minister may mean a change of policy, to have no Minister means continuity of policy. Certainly in Scotland, which represents about half of the potential growing area in this country, we are firm in saying that the results cannot be much worse under any other system of administration, and we are very keen that co-ordination shall be possible under a single Ministerial head, answerable at any rate from that bench for his faults or misdemeanours.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I have listened throughout this Debate, and have not attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Williams, until now because I have no definite pronouncement to make on behalf of the Government to-day in regard to the specific proposals which have been put forward. I should like to point out, particularly to the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), that this Report is the Report of the Commission and in no sense the Report of the Government. When he asks me whether or not, before making this Report, they had taken the opinion of this person or that person, consulted this authority or that authority, or got some special paper from some other body, I can only say that I have not the least idea. This is a Report of the Forestry Commission, and, even if there had been a specific reference to the Forestry Commission the Government would in no sense have been committed. But this Report is merely made by the Forestry Commission as part of their general duty to do what they can to promote the interests of forestry.

Earl Winterton: This is a point of some constitutional importance. I have been listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman


with the greatest interest, and I think he is getting into some sort of dilemma. Does he suggest that it is the duty of the Forestry Commission, at a time when everybody is talking about afforestation in every country, to formulate proposals, and that it is not the duty of the Government? I say that without in any way criticising the Commission. We ought to know the constitutional position.

Sir W. Jowitt: The powers of the Commission are set out in the Act of 1919. Their duties are to do all things to promote the interests of forestry, and in particular to publish such papers as shall be necessary to promote that end. Therefore, they are clearly acting within their right and within their duty.

Earl Winterton: I was present in the House, and asked a question, when this was discussed. We asked at the time whether that meant that it was the duty of the Forestry Commission to suggest or to bring in legislation, and we were told "No," that that was the duty of the Government. This proposal would necessitate legislation.

Sir W. Jowitt: Of course, it is the duty of the Government to promote legislation. This is a suggestion which we may or may not accept. All I am suggesting is that it is our duty to take this Report into consideration. We are not committed to any single line of it We shall examine the Report, and see on what lines legislation shall be promoted. But I was pointing out to the Committee that I did not think it right for us to indicate to-day what that legislation should be; and that is so for several reasons. We have given the plainest promise that before we promote legislation we will give an opportunity for representations to be made to us by all the interests concerned, including the landowning interest. It is true that some of these interests have put in their observations to the Forestry Commission. That was before they had seen this Report. It is right that before we make proposals to this House we should give all those interests the chance of making all the representations they want to make. I understand that arrangements are already being made for the Forestry Commission to meet these interests, to see if they can hammer out some policy on which all agree. That

will carry considerable weight in our view on policy.
There is another reason why we should not attempt to make any pronouncement to-day. As the hon. Member for Greenock said, we are waiting to receive reports on the hill sheep industry. We realise that there may be some conflicts of interest between those concerned in the hill sheep industry and those concerned in the problem of forestry. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. D. Scott) has gone, but I would like to say, in answer to his speech, that you cannot resolve that problem merely by considering the value of the respective products of the two industries or the amount of employment they give. Generally speaking, the hill sheep industry has been in equipoise with the requirements of the upland breeders of cross lambs and those of lowland feeders. We should not think of making a definite pronouncement on this matter until we have given a reasonable opportunity for these reports to be received. Also, quite frankly, the Government want to have the benefit of this Debate, to enable us to make tip our mind. Then, we cannot consider forestry in isolation, apart from our post-war commitments as a whole. Therefore, I do not propose to make any definite announcement to-day, on behalf of the Government, as to details of policy.
Having said that, let me say that I am anxious not to leave the Committee under the impression that we think this matter can be delayed for a long time. The Government realise that that cannot be done. In December last, long before this Report was published, I was authorised to announce to the House that we intended to pursue a vigorous forestry policy after the war. I need hardly say that the conclusion I then announced has been confirmed and strengthened by this Report of the Forestry Commission. I might take this opportunity of expressing, I am sure on behalf of all Members of the Committee, those who agree with the Report and those who dissent from it, our gratitude to the Forestry Commission for the very great amount of work they must have put into the matter and for the excellent Report which they have presented to us. In particular, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who has been a Member of the Commission since 1927,


has given, as we all know, most ungrudging service to the interests of the Forestry Commission, and it is about time that he received his due measure of thanks. Of course, in regard to technical questions, he would be the first to say that even now he does not possess all the technical qualifications which a highly-trained forestry officer would possess. The success of the Commission—and the Commission has been a very great success—has been, as he said, in no small measure due to the chairman, Sir Roy Robinson.
I have had an opportunity of seeing a great deal of the work of the Commission. I cannot hope to acquire expert knowledge, but I have talked to a number of people who have expert knowledge and who are quite independent of the Commission, and I would say that by far the greatest service the Commission has rendered to us is that it has established in this country a. school and a technique of forestry which I am informed is second to none in the world. That is a very remarkable achievement, and it is a fact which we should take into consideration in formulating our policy, although its actual achievements in planting have been on a comparatively small scale, for reasons which I will discuss presently. The hon. Member for Greenock has the gift of youth on his side. I do not know how far he has made himself familiar with the history of this matter. He will remember that before 1919, in the days of the Acland Committee, forestry was, of course, a mere side-show of the Ministry of Agriculture. We must keep a sense of proportion about forestry and realise that forestry, compared with agriculture as a whole, is obviously a comparatively unimportant thing. In those far-off days the fact that forestry was a mere side-show of the Agricultural Department resulted in the almost total neglect of forestry.
After the Report of the Wimborne Commission in 1909, the hight hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in his famous Budget, put aside the sum of £2,000,000 for purposes especially including forestry, and all that forestry in England, Scotland and Wales got out of that was something like £40,000, so that it is obvious that in those days forestry was wholly neglected. Then

came the Acland Committee, which had on it a very fine representative Scotsman, the late Lord Lovat. He was the first Chairman of the Commission. He knew Scotland, knew forestry and knew what he was talking about. He thought it his duty to insist, with perhaps more emphasis than his colleagues, on the importance of a single forestry authority for Great Britain. This he thought necessary for several reasons, first, to keep it out of the welter of conflicting authorities and to escape from the rancour of party politics, Royal Commissions and amateur inquiries; secondly, to make it possible for an accredited authority to draw up a definite forestry policy for the British Isles, and, thirdly, to conceive a body which would view the forestry situation in Great Britain as a whole and decide, on purely forestry grounds, the conflicting claims of the various countries unbiassed by local or political pressure. That was the view of Lord Lovat.
As far as the area of planting is concerned, it has been small. In the 20 years of the Forestry Commission, it has been something of the order of 400,000 acres; quality very good, quantity small. The reason for that is—it is not fair to blame the Forestry Commission—that the Forestry Commission have been gravely handicapped by the fact that the various grants made to them have hopped about from year to year. They varied from £200,000 in one year to as high as £900,000 in another year, and there has been no sort of continuity of finance. Continuity of finance is one of the essentials referred to in the Report—the
second essential. I think they might very well have put it as the first essential. I have discussed this with my colleagues, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have this to say to the Committee. We realise that it is impossible to achieve a satisfactory programme unless there is a continuity of finance, and therefore in whatever plans we finally announce to the House we shall provide for that continuity.
There is one other matter. In regard to private owners and the assistance the Forestry Commission have given to them, let me add that there has been a feeling—.whether right or wrong I have no means of knowing—that the interests of private


owners have been rather neglected by the Forestry Commission, who have been too immersed and too much occupied in State forestry and unable therefore to spare sufficient time to give attention to the needs and interests of private owners. I am glad to notice in this Report that the Forestry Commission are suggesting there is to be a special private woodlands committee and that the function of that committee will be entirely devoted to the giving of advice and attention to the private owners and seeing that the private woods are developed as they should be. I am not going to discuss—it would be inappropriate to do so—the point which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) raised of whether we ought or ought not to nationalise all land in the country. If it is decided to nationalise all land in the country no doubt you will not have to consider the case of the private owner because there will be no private owners. Private owners have played a distinguished part in the past. If it had not been for the private owner at the present time, we should indeed be in a nasty position. Though the general standard of forestry has not, taken on the whole, been high yet there have been some very notable exceptions. We certainly want to encourage the private owner and it would be a good thing if he and experts of the Forestry Commission can get together in order that they may pool their knowledge and resources and that the very best may be done all over the country alike for State forest and private forest.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather sweeping in his praise for private owners? Should he not say "some private owners"? Some private owners have denuded land of trees in order to make profit, and many others have not done their duty in this connection.

Sir W. Jowitt: I said that the general standard had not been high, but there had been some very notable exceptions. I do not think that to-day or in the near future the Government need necessarily take the final decision on the whole 50-year programme, but we must very soon take a decision upon the programme for the next decade, the ro post-war years. In the Report of the Forestry Commis

sion they themselves suggest that we should decide on some policy, and that policy can be reviewed at the end of the seventh or eighth year. It is to that that I desire to address myself. They propose that during the next 10 years, which is in fact the maximum programme that they think can efficiently be carried out, 500,000 acres should be afforested and 600,000 acres replanted, of which they hope that 200,000 will be done by private owners.

Earl Winterton: Who are "they"?

Sir W. Jowitt: The Commission. They are proposing that 1, 100,000 acres should be replanted or afforested during the first decade at a net cost of £41,000,000. That is a pretty big proposition. It means planting substantially three times as much as has already been planted by the Forestry Commission, and planting that much larger area in half the time. I want to say frankly to the Committee the lines upon which we view this matter. We certainly cannot neglect the lessons we have learnt in the last war and in this war once more. We all devoutly hope that this country will never again find itself at war, but he would be a very bold man who at the present time would contemplate that, after this war, we should dispense with all our means of defence. If you cannot dispense with all your means of defence, then you must take such other steps as are necessary for your security. In normal peace times we imported something like 96 per cent. of our requirements of timber, amounting to something over 12,000,000 tons a year. At the present time we have been forced to obtain something like half our very reduced supplies from our homegrown timber. This, coupled with the fact that during the last war we were equally obliged to cut much more drastically than we should have desired and that the replanting of the areas cut in the last war was not on anything like a large enough scale, has resulted, as the Committee must realise, in this: We shall finish this war with a negligible reserve of timber. If, heaven forbid, we do find ourselves in, say, 50 years' time engaged in another war, we shall find ourselves with practically nothing. Therefore, it is a matter of great importance that we should now, as soon as possible, within 10 years after this war, plant to a very considerable extent. In the case I am putting of another war coming in 50 years' time—and


please do not think that I contemplate hat as a likelihood—it would be the trees planted in the first 10 years after this war which would be the backbone on which we should have to rely.
But there is another and perhaps more compelling reason which makes it obvious that we must tackle this subject with great vigour. The Forestry Commission have shown by their work that we can in this country, thanks to our climate and our soil conditions, grow timber which is, on the whole, better than that of any other country in the world. Look at the rate of growth of Scots pine here in Great Britain compared with its rate of growth in Prussia, Sweden or Southern Finland as set out on page 99 of the Report.
It is a remarkable fact. Similar figures can be given with regard to Norwegian spruce. Can we, with those natural conditions strongly in our favour, afford to rely almost exclusively upon imports? Or is there a danger of a possible world shortage so that those imports either dry up or become very much more expensive? I want to put this frankly to the Committee. I do not think anybody can prophesy what the position will be in 50 years' time; indeed, I do not think anybody with any sense of responsibility would attempt to prophesy, but I know this, that in 1917 the Acland Committee gave us a very clear warning of the danger of a shortage; that in 1926 the Forestry Sub-committee of the Imperial Conference reported that they anticipated a serious shortage of soft woods by 1956 and that the Economic Committee of the League of Nations estimated in 1932 that world consumption was 5o per cent. greater than the annual growth. Professor Troup, a Fellow of the Royal Society, holding the Chair of Forestry at Oxford, a man of the greatest distinction, said in a book he published in 1938 that he anticipated a timber shortage and went on:
The anticipated timber shortage is not likely to descend on the world with the suddenness of a famine. As timber supplies continue to diminish less wood per head of the population will be used. The methods of preserving timber will be increasingly employed to prolong its life and substitutes will be found to a larger extent but the demand for wood for everyday use is likely to continue. Consequently, a serious shortage will soon be felt and in those countries where home supplies are deficient and this may cause serious distress in the timber using industries.
Those being the plain warnings we have had, the Government, having been ad-

vised by their expert advisers that such warnings cannot be lightly disregarded, say that we must go in for a really vigorous, bold forestry policy. I would add one thing more if I may. The chemical side of this should not be lost sight of. The forest crop produces more per acre of carbo-hydrates than any other field of crops, and we are living in a carbo-hydrate age. I will not bore the Committee with details of what is being done abroad, but in Germany at the present moment and in other countries they are making large quantities of sugar from sawdust, and the possibilities of further use are enormous.
While I cannot accept to-day the programme of 1,1000 acres, I do say that even though it becomes necessary to scale that down in view of our other commitments, the policy we have to adopt is far greater than anything we envisaged in the past. The Forestry Commission have asked for an answer now as to what steps they should take, and I want to say, on behalf of the Government, that they should take all steps that are now open to them to prepare for a great expansion of their efforts. In particular, the Government want them to take steps to acquire land, even although it need not be diverted from its present use for some years. Here, I need hardly say that it must be acquired in the fullest consultation with the agricultural Departments. Surveys should be made and plants should be raised on a larger scale, and such preliminary steps as are possible with a view to increased training and education should be taken now. We want them to get ready to go full speed ahead when peace comes.

Mr. Mathers: Will that need early legislation?

Sir W. Jowitt: It will certainly need early legislation. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to go on, as I have not much time left.

Mr. Mathers: We have a Bill before us now, the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Bill, which places the responsibility for matters of that kind, in the acquirement of land, on the Secretary of State.

Sir W. Jowitt: I am very sorry, but I want to conclude one or two other observations, and I must pass on. It is obvious


that, whatever policy the Government may decide to adopt, the carrying out of that policy must be entrusted to an ad hoc forestry authority. I do not propose to discuss in this Debate—and I doubt whether it would be technically in Order; at any rate, it is not settled yet—what the relationship between the forestry authority and the responsible Minister should be. But that matter will be taken into consideration in the light of this Debate. However independent an ad hoc forestry authority may be—and it is quite clear that they must have a large measure of independence—the closer the collaboration of the agricultural interests and the less antagonism there may be between the interests of forestry and agriculture the better it will be for everyone concerned. There are obvious advantages in having one authority, a unified forest service for the whole of the United Kingdom. No one, for instance, would doubt the value that comes from a common research and a common interchange of staff.
It is a fact that the Royal Scottish Forestry Society have recently reported in favour of a single forest authority for the whole of great Britain, with adequate representation for Scotland and with a branch or department charged with the direction of executive work in Scotland, and the Scottish Land and Property Federation concur in that recommendation. I anticipate no difficulty whatever in seeing that arrangements are made upon those lines, which will give complete satisfaction to all the interests concerned. I need hardly say that, if that is done, the same principle would apply to Wales, and may I add also to England. Those are the third and fourth conditions. The necessity for greatly extending research work, which is the fifth condition, is also accepted by the Government. With regard to the scheme of dedication, I do not, for reasons that I have already given, propose to pronounce any opinion upon it. It would be quite unfair to pronounce an opinion until all views have been tendered and everyone has been given an opportunity of saying what they want. I am glad to know that the Forestry Commission are already taking steps to that end, and I am ready, on behalf of the Government, to receive any representations which anyone may desire to make. Equally I do not propose to discuss any amendment of our taxation system

which, of course, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and equally the continuance of felling licences is a matter which we shall have to look into. We must not, of course, neglect the question of amenities and beauty—I do not regard that as a trivial matter at all—but the Forestry Commission is now in the closest touch with the bodies particularly concerned with those matters.
There is one other matter that I want to deal with. I was more impressed by this than by anything else. When I went to Rendlesham and saw that forest, it was not so much the people but the atmosphere of the place that impressed me. I saw a large number of very brown, healthy looking children running wild in these forest clearings, and when one asked them, as one does on these occasions, "What are you going to be?" they looked as me as if they thought me mad and said, "A forester, of course." It seemed to me that that is the sort of way in which tradition is built up and that, altogether apart from the numbers employed, which are very considerable—124 instead of 7—we are bringing up a lot of healthy, happy, contented people who will give us a dividend perhaps even greater than that which we shall get from our trees.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Major Sir James Edmondson]—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

POST-WAR OVERSEAS POLICING

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Major Nield: On 1st June this Question appeared in my name:
To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, following the representation made to him on 20th April, 1943, he will forthwith call for volunteers to form the military Forces or part of those Forces necessary for the occupation or policing of such areas overseas as may have to be occupied or policed after the war, in order to release Army personnel who have served abroad either to home establishment or to civilian employment as soon as possible?


The reply of my right hon. Friend was:
My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion has been carefully considered, but I am afraid there are great objections to adopting his suggestion now. It will, no doubt, be considered in the future, in the light of our commitments the world over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1943; col. 10, Vol. 390.]
The House should know that having returned from the Middle East on 11th April I put these proposals before my right hon. Friend on the 20th of that month. He asked me to put them into writing, which I did on the same day. Hearing nothing for a time, I wrote again on 11th May. Having had no reply to that communication, I put this Question down. So important did I regard this matter, that I asked similar questions of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Labour. Their replies were akin to that of my right hon. Friend, and while I take hope from those replies for the future, I cannot but be dissatisfied, since I regard this question as one of such peremptory urgency. May I say that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for himself being here to-day to deal with the matter after his arduous journeys overseas?
Crystallised, my suggestion is this: It must be recognised and agreed that after the war it will be necessary, in conjunction with our Allies, to provide a force for the occupying or policing of certain areas in various parts of the world. I submit with all the force at my command that it would be unjust and inequitable if those forces who have been overseas for three, four, five and six years, with the consequent separation from their wives and families, should be used to form that force. Therefore, I say, call now for volunteers to form that force, or, at any rate, the nucleus of it. Let a list be drawn up from those now in the Services and also in civil employment who are willing to undertake this essential task. There could not, of course, be any guarantee that they would go overseas, but let them be allowed to offer themselves. I do not suggest departing from the policy of compulsion, but just as a soldier in a unit may be called upon to undertake some special, important and particular duty, so now should volunteers be called for, to do this task which has to be performed.
I suggest that these volunteers should be offered generous terms in the matter of pay and allowances, that their wives

should be allowed to go with them, and that they should be provided with adequate pensions after a reasonable period of time. Again, I think it would be as well that they should be granted some distinguishing badge, such as the letters "V.O.," Volunteer for Overseas, or something of that kind, and I think it should be made known that the life of a soldier overseas in the circumstances I am suggesting can be a good life indeed. I claim that these proposals are both reasonable and workable.
The hope has been expressed, particularly since the conclusion of operations in North Africa, that there might be some home leave granted to those who have taken part in those operations, and I approached my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that and other subjects when he was last in Egypt; but I recognise fully the difficulties, and, while I hope it may be possible, I am not, as is observed, asking for that now; and, of course, one bears in mind that Genera Alexander and his Staff have said that those Forces are determined to finish the job. Similarly, there has been a hope expressed that fresh Forces may be sent to the Far East when the European Axis forces have been destroyed. This, I hope, also many eventuate, but here, again, I fully recognise the difficulties and the fact that we are pledged to abate our effort not one whit in aid of the United States and China against Japan. Thus it is in these circumstances that I have confined my proposals to calling for volunteers for service after the war.
May I give the House some of the reasons why I suggest that this is indeed a matter of immediate moment? First from the troops' point of view. It is, I think, necessary to say that during my two years' service overseas, I was a staff officer living for the mast part in comparative comfort and safety, and I make no claim, I have no claim, to that epithet which tradition sometimes attaches to my name in this House. I prefer it to be applied to the fighting men. But I had sufficient contact during those two years with those men to know their views and what they are thinking. I have no hesitation in saying that they have but one objective in view, and that is, having done the job, to return home to their wives and families, from whom they have been separated all these long years. During


the inevitable periods of inactivity and boredom I have known these men plot quite unworkable schemes for getting home, and very often, though they grumble so little and complain so little, their hearts ache.
Secondly, there, is the point of view of those who are at home, and I would venture to read one letter, one of many which I have had from all parts of the country. I read extracts from that letter:
As one whose husband is serving with the Middle East Forces I should like to express my gratitude to you for having suggested in Parliament a plan to bring these men home as soon as possible after the end of hostilities. I trust you will forgive my venturing to write to you. When I first saw the report I felt that I should like to do so, but could not at first pluck up sufficient courage, but this short paragraph did give me a gleam of hope in the midst of much depression, for just at that time I was beginning to think that, apparently, even the end of war would not release my husband. The separation is especially painful to us now, because our first child, who was born six months after his father had left England, died very suddenly when he was only 18 days old. This has been a terrible grief to us both, but perhaps more especially to me as his mother, for his father never saw him, and with my husband away we are denied the only possible consolation, that of having other children. As I am not just a young girl and the thought of a long separation, even without the constant anxieties which, like so many wives, I suffer now, makes me desperately unhappy. Perhaps you will understand therefore how thankful I was when I saw that someone in public life was conscious that those who had so long been separated from their families have a claim to be considered as soon as the war is over. Please God, that time may not be far off. And perhaps it may have been some slight encouragement to you to know that some one unknown to you is grateful to you for your effort.
I know that sentiment cannot be allowed to enter into this matter, but I think that this House, with its warm and generous heart, cannot but be moved by a document such as that, and I am not ashamed to say that that document, and many which I have received from all parts of the country, have moved me as I have seldom been moved before.
It has been suggested that perhaps the response to this call for volunteers would be small, but in my view that shows a singular lack of faith in the patriotism of our people. Here again I wish to quote from one letter of many I have received. My correspondent says:
I should like to say that I hope your policy of bringing back as quickly as possible when the war is over men who have been

serving overseas will meet with success. There must be plenty of men like myself who would be keen to volunteer for police duties when the others come back, but who are at present deferred because the staff is already reduced to rock bottom. My brother on the other hand has been away from his family in the Middle East for two years and by the time the war is over will have done his bit and will want to get home.
It is my case, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio will notice what I say, that these men who have shown such high valour and devotion, in the swaying battles of Egypt and North Africa, have earned at least an assurance, to be publicly and immediately given, that they will be brought home as soon as is practicable when the war is over. The other day in this House my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) drew attention to a new significance which is attaching to the letters from M.E.F.—"Men England Forgets." God forbid that we should ever be found guilty of so appalling, so horrifying, an indictment. I urge the Government to give to these men some hope and some encouragement, and a way to do this is to be found, I suggest, in the proposal which, perhaps inadequately but, believe me, with profound sincerity, I have endeavoured to advance.

Mr. Charles Wood: I wish to add one word in support of the proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend, for one particular reason. I am afraid that when the war is finished my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—whom I would congratulate on his safe return home after his most successful tour among our troops in North Africa and the Middle East—will say to himself, if he is still in office, as I hope he will be, that, owing to the difficulties of transport and many other obstacles that will arise, it will be obviously much easier to leave the men there on the spot to do the policing, in the various theatres of war where they find themselves and where they will be needed. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are many men who have already been away from their homes, their wives and families for a considerable number of years. There are some—I know of several—who have children of four years of age, and have not set eyes on them yet. By the end of the war, there will be more. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it is their fervent desire, when their job is


finished, to come home to their wives and families, and I would ask that they should not be left on the spot, and that they will receive first consideration. A lot of them in the Middle East have stood the strain and borne the hardships of desert war for three years, the big things as well as the little, and it is the little things that matter so much.
The life of a soldier abroad after the war and under the conditions of peace, will be very different from all that. It can be made a particularly pleasant and attractive life, and it may be made attractive by giving those men who go abroad additional advantages over the troops at home, on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I talked to quite a lot of men when I was in the Middle East, who said that when the job was finished they would be prepared to transfer to, say, such an admirable body as the police force in Palestine. I think that is just a small indication of their willingness showing that there will be men who will volunteer to stay abroad after the war. I would in conclusion ask my right hon. Friend to give this proposal his utmost consideration if for no other reason than that it will enable these men who have been abroad for so long, to return home at the first opportunity.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The hon. and gallant Member for Chester (Major Nield), no doubt unwittingly, made one or two remarks which rather suggested that I had been discourteous in dealing with his initial approach to me on this subject, and he gave what seemed to me to be a slightly incomplete account of a previous conversation which we had when he came to me shortly after his return from the Middle East to explain his proposals. To the best of my recollection, I said I did not think they were workable but that if he would put them on paper, I would place them before the Committee in the War Office which was considering demobilisation questions for their consideration along with all sorts of demobilisation schemes which had been put before them. I certainly did not contemplate any immediate pronouncement on this particular project, and I said at the time that I deprecated any public discussion on demobilisation problems, when the urgent question was to win the war first and to settle later

what was to happen after it. That by way of personal explanation.
I think there has been an assumption running through both the speeches we have heard that the war will end suddenly, or rather, simultaneously all over the world; that there will be a definite day on which you will be able to say that the war is over. From what the Prime Minister has said recently, and what common sense would lead us to suppose, it does not look as though it will be as simple as that. What we shall probably have to deal with is the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, combined with the continuation of hostilities in other parts of the world. Here let me turn aside and deal with another question which seems to me to have been running through at any rate the second of the two speeches, that is the problem of leave for people who have been a long time in the Middle East. I would like to deal with it and to clear it out of the way, because it is not germane to the main issue which has been raised.
I am as conscious as anybody of this problem of the people who have been a very long time in the Middle East. I am conscious, too, that the rule which now exists, that they should be transferred to the home establishment only after six years' service, is too harsh, and I am extremely anxious to get that period of six years reduced. But it depends entirely on the availability of shipping, and, although I cannot go further in that matter than to say that I am extremely conscious of the hardship of people having to remain there so long, as soon as it is physically possible to reduce the period I will do my utmost to see that it is done.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that it depended entirely on the shipping situation? Does it, in fact, depend on nothing else?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member wants me to hedge and cover myself, I will say that I do not know of any other factors at the present moment, except immediate operational considerations; but it depends almost entirely on shipping. I will say that, in order to safeguard myself against being accused in the future of telling stories.
Let me come to the main question, as I conceive it, the question of what


is to happen on demobilisation. Personally, I have a feeling that this question of demobilisation is one on which very little can be said with advantage at present, and most of that little has already been said. The Prime Minister has, on more than one occasion, deprecated our taking our eye off the ball, and any sort of discussion on what is to happen after we have defeated Germany, before we have actually done so, is to take our eye off the ball. Apart from that, the Prime Minister said, in his last speech at the Guildhall—a speech which I heard many hundreds of miles from here—that on the conclusion of the war in Europe, we should immediately transfer all the resources we have available to the furtherance of the war in the Pacific. That pledge to our great American allies and to our. Dominions, is, of course, quite inconsistent with any suggestion that we should now collect names of soldiers who are prepared to volunteer to police Europe, particularly as those who are prepared to enlist to police Europe are to get higher pay than those who are to be left to fight in the Pacific, as I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Chester (Major Nield).
The Minister without Portfolio has also made two statements bearing on the subject—one in this House and one in the country. They amount to this. The main criterion in the policy of demobilisation will be a combination of age and length of service. In accordance with promises given in this House, we are to consider whether it would be possible to give some special weightage for service overseas, but the Minister without Portfolio pointed out, at some length, that this was not at all plain sailing and that it would be by no means possible to do it in that simple direct form. Whether there are other methods of achieving that result is a matter of study. I, myself, have some ideas on the subject, and they are being studied at the War Office. Having referred to those two pronouncements, I do not, with the best will in the world, see how one can add materially to them.
I do, however, say two things, perhaps partly in the way of repetition. The Government realise the vital importance

of these demobilisation questions, an importance which is rather one of what we do in future, than of what we say now. We are, therefore, giving to them the intense study that their importance demands. As I say, there are lots of problems to be met, some of them very difficult of solution. I do not in the least despair of their being solved. The object that we have to achieve is to produce a scheme which is fair as between man and man, and that is the object to which all our studies are bent. In the last war, hon. Members will remember, the Government produced a scientific scheme which had as its main object the restarting of the national economy as quickly as possible. That scheme floundered, and floundered hopelessly, because it produced results regarded by serving soldiers and sailors as inequitable as between man and man.
I can assure the House that we do not propose to make the same mistake again. I assure the House, and through the House the millions of men serving in the Forces, that we have every intention of directing our efforts towards producing a scheme which is fair as between man and man. More than that, I do not see that I can say anything. We must first get ourselves into the position where the public discussion of demobilisation is a matter of practical concern. Fresh from my contact with the soldiers in North Africa—my contact was not, of course, as prolonged as that of the two hon. Members who have spoken, but it was clearly a little more recent—fresh from my contact with soldiers in North Africa and beyond, I have no doubt that they are content to put first things first. In return, they are entitled not to a cut-and-dried scheme of demobilisation formulated now, when no one can foresee all the circumstances which will arise after hostilities come to an end, either partially or completely, but they are entitled to the assurance I have just given, and which I repeat, that our plans will be based on equity and justice and not merely on expediency.

Major Nield: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would you allow me to say that at no time did I intend to charge my right hon. Friend with any discourtesy?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.